4 ms·

80 percent of the developed water supply in California is used by agriculture. About 6 percent is industrial and commercial. That leaves 7 percent residential l

by declan 12y ago

80 percent of the developed water supply in California is used by agriculture. About 6 percent is industrial and commercial. That leaves 7 percent residential landscaping, and 7 percent residential non-landscaping (showers, washing machines, etc.). Source: http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/where-we-are/in-a-season-of-drought-where-does-the-water-go.html http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/where-we-... Even if residential landscaping or non-landscaping water usage dropped by a quarter immediately, which seems rather unlikely, that's close to a rounding error compared to the amount of water to turn our near-desert into an agricultural breadbasket. Put another way, more water is used for almond farming alone in California than all residential landscaping or residential non-landscaping: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0... The drought is real, but I would take op-eds like these more seriously if they acknowledged the above figures. And the fact that some cities like Sacramento still don't have everyone on metered water -- flat rate! -- and meters won't be fully installed until after 2025. Source: http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/%20Utilities/Conservation/Water-Meters http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/%20Utilities/Conservation...

malkia 12y ago
It looks like it won't help much, but landscaping should stop. Double stop. Triple stop. No need to waste water in there, and comply with neighbor whatever regulations.
- VanillaCafe 12y ago
  I agree with OP. Solve the big problems first. If at some point landscaping ranks as a top consumer of water, then solve it. Attention and effort is a resource -- spend it where it has the most impact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
- the_watcher 12y ago
  There's pretty lucrative incentives for adjusting landscaping to reduce water consumption - I grew up in the Palm Springs area (which, ironically, is one of the few parts of California that can water itself - the golf courses have to buy their water from outside sources, but there is a large aquifer out there), and there's been a major move towards desert landscaping to take advantage of it.
the_watcher 12y ago
Related to this: California is one of the largest producers of rice (one of the most water-intensive crops in the world) in the United States. Rice (and other water intensive crops) shouldn't be grown in places that have water issues.
- aero142 12y ago
  Texas is also recovering from a 10 year drought and was growing rice up until last year. It's just crazy.
  - the_watcher 12y ago
    I lived in Texas for 3 years during the drought and had no idea they were growing rice.
jqm 12y ago
Everyone keeps blaming nuts, and they do use a lot of water, but Alfalfa is the biggest agricultural user of water in the state. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/meat-makes-the-planet-thirsty.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/meat-makes-the-pla...
swimfar 12y ago
How is 7% close to a rounding error? Especially when, in the case of landscaping, it is not a necessity and is almost completely for aesthetics[1]. If someone said they had money problems and it turns out they spend 7% of their income on makeup/barber visits/tanning salons, would you not point those out as possible expenses to reduce? Just because residential usage is not the main source of the problem doesn't mean people should just not care about it at all. I'm not implying that everyone take 30 second showers. I just think it's important to be conscious of your water usage and reducing it when it makes sense. Addressing multiple sources of the problem simultaneously is possible. Also, sometimes it's possible that you're able to reduce the smaller portion more than the larger portion, so you should never focus only on the large numbers. [1] Okay, neither are almonds, but I think you understand what I mean.
- declan 12y ago
  >How is 7% close to a rounding error? I didn't say 7% was a rounding error. I wrote "a quarter" of 7%, which is rather different.
  - swimfar 12y ago
    Ahh, sorry, I missed that (in a display of very poor reading skills). That does make more sense. But if commercial landscaping isn't included in that 7%, this number becomes larger. And if the drought is very serious, why wouldn't it be theoretically possible to cut landscaping usage down to near 0%? A 25% reduction seems like it would be very easy. (Although, I admit I don't have any idea what the breakdown of landscaping water usage looks like.)
    - eveningcoffee 12y ago
      Probably it makes much more sense to reduce water intensive agricultural activities like rice production together with other water conservation practices (i.e. making water more expensive for home users).

by declan 12y ago

malkia 12y ago

It looks like it won't help much, but landscaping should stop. Double stop. Triple stop. No need to waste water in there, and comply with neighbor whatever regulations.

VanillaCafe 12y ago
I agree with OP. Solve the big problems first. If at some point landscaping ranks as a top consumer of water, then solve it. Attention and effort is a resource -- spend it where it has the most impact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
the_watcher 12y ago
There's pretty lucrative incentives for adjusting landscaping to reduce water consumption - I grew up in the Palm Springs area (which, ironically, is one of the few parts of California that can water itself - the golf courses have to buy their water from outside sources, but there is a large aquifer out there), and there's been a major move towards desert landscaping to take advantage of it.

the_watcher 12y ago

Related to this: California is one of the largest producers of rice (one of the most water-intensive crops in the world) in the United States. Rice (and other water intensive crops) shouldn't be grown in places that have water issues.

aero142 12y ago
Texas is also recovering from a 10 year drought and was growing rice up until last year. It's just crazy.
- the_watcher 12y ago
  I lived in Texas for 3 years during the drought and had no idea they were growing rice.

jqm 12y ago

Everyone keeps blaming nuts, and they do use a lot of water, but Alfalfa is the biggest agricultural user of water in the state. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/meat-makes-the-planet-thirsty.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/meat-makes-the-pla...

swimfar 12y ago

How is 7% close to a rounding error? Especially when, in the case of landscaping, it is not a necessity and is almost completely for aesthetics[1]. If someone said they had money problems and it turns out they spend 7% of their income on makeup/barber visits/tanning salons, would you not point those out as possible expenses to reduce? Just because residential usage is not the main source of the problem doesn't mean people should just not care about it at all. I'm not implying that everyone take 30 second showers. I just think it's important to be conscious of your water usage and reducing it when it makes sense. Addressing multiple sources of the problem simultaneously is possible. Also, sometimes it's possible that you're able to reduce the smaller portion more than the larger portion, so you should never focus only on the large numbers. [1] Okay, neither are almonds, but I think you understand what I mean.

declan 12y ago
>How is 7% close to a rounding error? I didn't say 7% was a rounding error. I wrote "a quarter" of 7%, which is rather different.
- swimfar 12y ago
  Ahh, sorry, I missed that (in a display of very poor reading skills). That does make more sense. But if commercial landscaping isn't included in that 7%, this number becomes larger. And if the drought is very serious, why wouldn't it be theoretically possible to cut landscaping usage down to near 0%? A 25% reduction seems like it would be very easy. (Although, I admit I don't have any idea what the breakdown of landscaping water usage looks like.)
  - eveningcoffee 12y ago
    Probably it makes much more sense to reduce water intensive agricultural activities like rice production together with other water conservation practices (i.e. making water more expensive for home users).