3 ms·

We are in a drought, regardless. A quick google search seems to indicate that agriculture accounts for something like 80% of the water use in California. So, i

We are in a drought, regardless. A quick google search seems to indicate that agriculture accounts for something like 80% of the water use in California. So, in a sense, you are correct that we probably wouldn't have to worry about the drought from a drinking water point of view if not for agricultural use. However, we would have to worry about food supply issues nationally and economic issues in what is already one of the most economically depressed areas of the country. Besides, most cities, including where I currently live, are not actually all that worried about water for domestic use. There have been no restrictions with any real bite. It is agriculture that is going to hurt first . . . well, no, it is the natural environment that is going to hurt first. Agriculture should probably take a hit, but that is politically difficult and certainly not consequence free as posts like these seem to indicate.

throwaway342526 12y ago
" However, we would have to worry about food supply issues nationally and economic issues in what is already one of the most economically depressed areas of the country." The impact would be relatively minor. For example, we could simply stop growing rice in the desert and more than recover all water saved by urban use: http://www.kevinroderick.com/rice.html http://www.kevinroderick.com/rice.html There's more water lost to evaporation in rice fields than LA uses in its entirety all year long. We could very easily move California rice production to wet areas in the south which don't suffer droughts and which already produce most of our rice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_the_United_States#Production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_the_United_S...
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  The thing I say about rice is this: at least you can eat it. You can't say that about alfalfa, which uses over 5MAF of water per year (double the water input of rice) for negligible economic benefit (~a billion dollars in water needed to grow ~a billion dollars of alfalfa). This is chiefly used to feed cattle and more than 2/3rds of it is exported.

throwaway342526 12y ago

" However, we would have to worry about food supply issues nationally and economic issues in what is already one of the most economically depressed areas of the country." The impact would be relatively minor. For example, we could simply stop growing rice in the desert and more than recover all water saved by urban use: http://www.kevinroderick.com/rice.html http://www.kevinroderick.com/rice.html There's more water lost to evaporation in rice fields than LA uses in its entirety all year long. We could very easily move California rice production to wet areas in the south which don't suffer droughts and which already produce most of our rice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_the_United_States#Production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_the_United_S...

thrownaway2424 12y ago
The thing I say about rice is this: at least you can eat it. You can't say that about alfalfa, which uses over 5MAF of water per year (double the water input of rice) for negligible economic benefit (~a billion dollars in water needed to grow ~a billion dollars of alfalfa). This is chiefly used to feed cattle and more than 2/3rds of it is exported.