3 ms·

80% of the water use in California is agricultural.

by sfeng 12y ago

fletchowns 12y ago
You say that like we can magically stop using water for agriculture production and divert it all to residential use and there will be no consequences. California produces a staggering amount of food, there would be a lot of consequences if agriculture production is disrupted. We need conservation efforts on both sides.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  Nobody is suggesting we stop (yet). But uh, how about instead of trying for "the absolute most lucrative crop that happens to use 10x as much water as the next most lucrative crop", we say that this 10x isn't worth it. Here's california 2008 GDP broken down by sector: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Gross_Domestic_Product_of_California_2008_%28millions_of_current_dollars%29.svg/690px-Gross_Domestic_Product_of_California_2008_%28millions_of_current_dollars%29.svg.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Gro... (The data is similar for newer years). So 2% of our economy is using 80% of our water. This seems like a bad tradeoff, even if it meant a 30% increase in food prices or whatever. (Since california exports the vast majority of it's agriculture, this isn't likely)
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    "So 2% of our economy is using 80% of our water. This seems like a bad tradeoff [..]" I don't think this comparison is actually terribly meaningful. Most of California industry just doesn't have much use for much water. The tradeoffs aren't so much with the next industry over (yet, or for a while) but with future years and with local ecologies. The 80% figure alone means it's probably where we need to be looking in terms of improving efficiencies, whether it was 1% or 20% or 90% of our economy. Certainly, we need to start actually charging appropriate amounts for water (including depletion of groundwater) so that people will find those efficiencies. But I'm not so sure that 80% number will change.
- elmin 12y ago
  Drip irrigation uses as little as 1% the water of traditional irrigation methods.
- BurningFrog 12y ago
  There is nothing magical about raising water prices until demand comes down to meet the actual supply. Yes, there would be a lot of consequences. There are always consequences. One consequence would be a sustainable water situation in California.
- erispoe 12y ago
  California produces hell of a lot of almonds. Almonds grow on trees that demand a lot of water, and a constant flow of it, too. Other crops you can do without for a year, or adapt more easily from year to year to new conditions. With almonds, California is locked in. Agriculture in California is unadapted to uncertain conditions.
whyenot 12y ago
Yes, but this figure is also a little misleading. For example, if you live in San Francisco or several other cities in the Bay Area, 80% of your water comes from the Hetch Hetchy system. Very little of that water is used for agriculture. If the snowpack is 30% of normal, than the water entering the system is 30% of normal, and that's a problem.

80% of the water use in California is agricultural.

by sfeng 12y ago

80% of the water use in California is agricultural.

You say that like we can magically stop using water for agriculture production and divert it all to residential use and there will be no consequences. California produces a staggering amount of food, there would be a lot of consequences if agriculture production is disrupted. We need conservation efforts on both sides.

DannyBee 12y ago
Nobody is suggesting we stop (yet). But uh, how about instead of trying for "the absolute most lucrative crop that happens to use 10x as much water as the next most lucrative crop", we say that this 10x isn't worth it. Here's california 2008 GDP broken down by sector: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Gross_Domestic_Product_of_California_2008_%28millions_of_current_dollars%29.svg/690px-Gross_Domestic_Product_of_California_2008_%28millions_of_current_dollars%29.svg.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Gro... (The data is similar for newer years). So 2% of our economy is using 80% of our water. This seems like a bad tradeoff, even if it meant a 30% increase in food prices or whatever. (Since california exports the vast majority of it's agriculture, this isn't likely)
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "So 2% of our economy is using 80% of our water. This seems like a bad tradeoff [..]" I don't think this comparison is actually terribly meaningful. Most of California industry just doesn't have much use for much water. The tradeoffs aren't so much with the next industry over (yet, or for a while) but with future years and with local ecologies. The 80% figure alone means it's probably where we need to be looking in terms of improving efficiencies, whether it was 1% or 20% or 90% of our economy. Certainly, we need to start actually charging appropriate amounts for water (including depletion of groundwater) so that people will find those efficiencies. But I'm not so sure that 80% number will change.
elmin 12y ago
Drip irrigation uses as little as 1% the water of traditional irrigation methods.
BurningFrog 12y ago
There is nothing magical about raising water prices until demand comes down to meet the actual supply. Yes, there would be a lot of consequences. There are always consequences. One consequence would be a sustainable water situation in California.
erispoe 12y ago
California produces hell of a lot of almonds. Almonds grow on trees that demand a lot of water, and a constant flow of it, too. Other crops you can do without for a year, or adapt more easily from year to year to new conditions. With almonds, California is locked in. Agriculture in California is unadapted to uncertain conditions.

whyenot 12y ago

Yes, but this figure is also a little misleading. For example, if you live in San Francisco or several other cities in the Bay Area, 80% of your water comes from the Hetch Hetchy system. Very little of that water is used for agriculture. If the snowpack is 30% of normal, than the water entering the system is 30% of normal, and that's a problem.