3 ms·

You simply don't understand the scale of the water we use. > At home one can cut showers from 15 mins down to 5 or two. On the farm it means not planting x acr

You simply don't understand the scale of the water we use. > At home one can cut showers from 15 mins down to 5 or two. On the farm it means not planting x acres that year. Urban direct water usage (ie., showers, watering lawns, flushing the toilet, etc) only accounts for 4% of the State water budget. FOUR PERCENT. [0] Cutting your shower from 15 mins to 5 is utterly meaningless compared to agricultural use. [0] PDF warning: http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/ca_ftprint_full_report3.pdf http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/ca_ft...

mc32 11y ago
My objection is not with the goal towards conservation, but rather the tone, the method and the lack of leadership from gov't. The way its framed is unfortunate. It seems political rather than practical.
nsxwolf 11y ago
Parent's point is simply that in the home you can drastically cut water usage without it affecting your life much, but in farming the consequences are large.
- Domenic_S 11y ago
  Of course they're large, because they use a lot of water. That's the whole point. Cutting residential usage is comparatively easy because we don't actually use that much water at home. See the study I linked above if you don't believe me.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  Which is cut against by the affect that cutting urban water usage just doesn't matter. You could cut it to zero. We would run out of water in the same amount of time.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  And respondent's post is that drastically cutting home usage amounts to precisely dick in the scheme of things.
maxlybbert 11y ago
The point isn't about whether cutting home use would make a meaningful difference, just that it's much easier for a household to reduce water use than for a farm. Yes, we need water efficient farms (or, perhaps, farms in places that aren't so hostile to agriculture). But it's very hard to make a farm water efficient.
- Domenic_S 11y ago
  > But it's very hard to make a farm water efficient. Kind of a sweeping statement. Here's an inexpensive product that reduces water usage by 90%, aimed to farmers and especially good for citrus: http://treetpee.com/ttp-u/ http://treetpee.com/ttp-u/
  - maxlybbert 11y ago
    That makes a lot more sense for orchards (which are widespread in California) than for grapes, tomatoes, lettuce, etc. (which are also widespread in California). For the record, I've lived in several places with water shortages since I was a teenager. I believe every one placed restrictions on certain activities (no washing car at home, water lawns only on designated days, no water for ornamental ponds, etc.) instead of simply raising the price of water. I believe California could fix its problem with a lot less trouble by letting the price of water reflect its supply and demand.
    - seanflyon 11y ago
      > letting the price of water reflect its supply and demand. Which would force a significant reduction in agricultural water use.
      - maxlybbert 11y ago
        Yes, exactly. Partly by running unprofitable farms out of business (well,out of agriculture); partly by encouraging farmers to grow crops that don't need as much water; partly by encouraging farms to watch their water use. But the people making the decision would be people who know how much water their crops need, what the alternatives are, how profitable their crops will be in six months, etc. I simply don't have much faith in across the board cuts. That is, I agree that water needs to be conserved. But I think there's a better approach; namely, letting the market work.

mc32 11y ago

My objection is not with the goal towards conservation, but rather the tone, the method and the lack of leadership from gov't. The way its framed is unfortunate. It seems political rather than practical.

nsxwolf 11y ago

Parent's point is simply that in the home you can drastically cut water usage without it affecting your life much, but in farming the consequences are large.

Domenic_S 11y ago
Of course they're large, because they use a lot of water. That's the whole point. Cutting residential usage is comparatively easy because we don't actually use that much water at home. See the study I linked above if you don't believe me.
DannyBee 11y ago
Which is cut against by the affect that cutting urban water usage just doesn't matter. You could cut it to zero. We would run out of water in the same amount of time.
s73v3r 11y ago
And respondent's post is that drastically cutting home usage amounts to precisely dick in the scheme of things.

maxlybbert 11y ago

The point isn't about whether cutting home use would make a meaningful difference, just that it's much easier for a household to reduce water use than for a farm. Yes, we need water efficient farms (or, perhaps, farms in places that aren't so hostile to agriculture). But it's very hard to make a farm water efficient.

Domenic_S 11y ago
> But it's very hard to make a farm water efficient. Kind of a sweeping statement. Here's an inexpensive product that reduces water usage by 90%, aimed to farmers and especially good for citrus: http://treetpee.com/ttp-u/ http://treetpee.com/ttp-u/
- maxlybbert 11y ago
  That makes a lot more sense for orchards (which are widespread in California) than for grapes, tomatoes, lettuce, etc. (which are also widespread in California). For the record, I've lived in several places with water shortages since I was a teenager. I believe every one placed restrictions on certain activities (no washing car at home, water lawns only on designated days, no water for ornamental ponds, etc.) instead of simply raising the price of water. I believe California could fix its problem with a lot less trouble by letting the price of water reflect its supply and demand.
  - seanflyon 11y ago
    > letting the price of water reflect its supply and demand. Which would force a significant reduction in agricultural water use.
    - maxlybbert 11y ago
      Yes, exactly. Partly by running unprofitable farms out of business (well,out of agriculture); partly by encouraging farmers to grow crops that don't need as much water; partly by encouraging farms to watch their water use. But the people making the decision would be people who know how much water their crops need, what the alternatives are, how profitable their crops will be in six months, etc. I simply don't have much faith in across the board cuts. That is, I agree that water needs to be conserved. But I think there's a better approach; namely, letting the market work.