4 ms·

Yeah, but we're quibbling about a fraction of a percent going to drinking water in restaurants while 1 - the lawns in ruby hills and atherton are still green;

by x0x0 12y ago

Yeah, but we're quibbling about a fraction of a percent going to drinking water in restaurants while 1 - the lawns in ruby hills and atherton are still green; 2 - agriculture -- and my problem here is profligate doesn't begin to describe how they use water; wantonly wastes is not even accurate -- is, collectively, delusional. CA grows rice. In desert. Rice is the most water intensive crop in the world. CA grows almonds, which use 1.1 gallons of water per almond. We grow alfalfa. We grow cotton. Etc etc. Farmers have giant sprinklers running in 90+F weather in near zero humidity at 1pm in the afternoon. CA needs to have a serious discussion about what crops should be grown here, and that probably ends with both adding at least 2 if not 4 zeros to the water price paid by agriculture, and not permitting the growth of the most water intensive crops. That's not to say cities are blameless; Sacramento doesn't even meter water. They hope to do so by 2025. Oh, and (imo) the worries about food are overblown. We export lots of those food crops, and people can live without almonds. (a quick google claims 10% of the state's water use is for almonds!!! [1]) I love almonds, but we will survive without them. Here's a quote About 70 percent of alfalfa grown in California is used in dairies, and a good portion of the rest is exported to land-poor Asian countries like Japan. Yep, that’s right: In the middle of a drought, farmers are shipping fresh hay across the Pacific Ocean. The water that’s locked up in exported hay amounts to about 100 billion gallons per year—enough to supply 1 million families with drinking water for a year. [1] In the midst of a severe drought, there is zero reason to permit export of incredibly water intensive crops. [1] 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...

ihaveajob 12y ago
All great points. What baffles me is that in Spain, the world's second largest almond producer, almond trees are largely not watered. I suppose production suffers, but still...
- latch 12y ago
  According to Wiki, the US gets 10x+ the almond yield by weight per hectare versus Spain. (Not saying it justifies the use of water, just providing the numbers).
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Spain also has nearly 2x the average rainfall of California. Rainfall in California is also mostly concentrated in places where we're not growing almonds - I don't know if that's true of Spain.
DannyBee 12y ago
"1 - the lawns in ruby hills and atherton are still green; " These lawns are 50% of urban use, which is 10% of total water use. While it is not a great sign of conservation efforts, The problem is that by pretending that it's a real problem, we keep avoiding the real problem - our agriculture is simply unsustainable in it's current form. IE it enables people and politicians to avoid the real problem, by selling a line to people that it's their non-conserving neighbors that are the problem, when it simply isn't. California needs to have a long and hard discussion about what should be happening in agriculture. Not a long and hard discussion about lawns in atherton. The oft-repeated "well, it helps people understand they need to conserve" is clearly false. It not only doesn't do that (hasn't for years!), it enables a smoke screen over the real issue. Now, instead of hearing on the radio that "politicians are seriously considering what to do about our agriculture issues", i hear, "politicians have enacted lawn watering restrictions to help ease the drought". That's what focusing, at all, on urban usage, does.
- x0x0 12y ago
  Yes and no. 50% of urban use times 10% of total use is still 5% of use, and it's very easy to cut. That still makes it worthwhile pursuing. It's the same as Obama talking about gas usage. We should have higher fleet mileage via higher cafe standards -- but refill the air in your tires often too, because it's easy savings. And we're going to be able to hear the farmers screaming and moaning from orbit. Cutting waste in cities helps make the case.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    Sorry, but after watching what happens when you push on this, it just becomes "the solution" and "the thing people should care about", when people should care about this minimally, and something else (agriculture) maximally. Yes, it's easy to cut. We can't cut it to 0. So let's say we can cut it in half. Great, so a 2.5% savings overall, by cutting water use here in half. Getting the same savings from agriculture would take cutting 32x less water. Obama is wrong. If you focus people on the wrong problems, they obsess about the wrong problems. Humans just don't work in a way that this turns out well, and as a result, it's better to focus them on the actual problem, even if they can't personally do anything about it.

by x0x0 12y ago

ihaveajob 12y ago

All great points. What baffles me is that in Spain, the world's second largest almond producer, almond trees are largely not watered. I suppose production suffers, but still...

latch 12y ago
According to Wiki, the US gets 10x+ the almond yield by weight per hectare versus Spain. (Not saying it justifies the use of water, just providing the numbers).
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Spain also has nearly 2x the average rainfall of California. Rainfall in California is also mostly concentrated in places where we're not growing almonds - I don't know if that's true of Spain.

DannyBee 12y ago

"1 - the lawns in ruby hills and atherton are still green; " These lawns are 50% of urban use, which is 10% of total water use. While it is not a great sign of conservation efforts, The problem is that by pretending that it's a real problem, we keep avoiding the real problem - our agriculture is simply unsustainable in it's current form. IE it enables people and politicians to avoid the real problem, by selling a line to people that it's their non-conserving neighbors that are the problem, when it simply isn't. California needs to have a long and hard discussion about what should be happening in agriculture. Not a long and hard discussion about lawns in atherton. The oft-repeated "well, it helps people understand they need to conserve" is clearly false. It not only doesn't do that (hasn't for years!), it enables a smoke screen over the real issue. Now, instead of hearing on the radio that "politicians are seriously considering what to do about our agriculture issues", i hear, "politicians have enacted lawn watering restrictions to help ease the drought". That's what focusing, at all, on urban usage, does.

x0x0 12y ago
Yes and no. 50% of urban use times 10% of total use is still 5% of use, and it's very easy to cut. That still makes it worthwhile pursuing. It's the same as Obama talking about gas usage. We should have higher fleet mileage via higher cafe standards -- but refill the air in your tires often too, because it's easy savings. And we're going to be able to hear the farmers screaming and moaning from orbit. Cutting waste in cities helps make the case.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  Sorry, but after watching what happens when you push on this, it just becomes "the solution" and "the thing people should care about", when people should care about this minimally, and something else (agriculture) maximally. Yes, it's easy to cut. We can't cut it to 0. So let's say we can cut it in half. Great, so a 2.5% savings overall, by cutting water use here in half. Getting the same savings from agriculture would take cutting 32x less water. Obama is wrong. If you focus people on the wrong problems, they obsess about the wrong problems. Humans just don't work in a way that this turns out well, and as a result, it's better to focus them on the actual problem, even if they can't personally do anything about it.