4 ms·

The point is watering your lawn is a drop in the giant reservoir. If only 20% of the water is being used by residents (in reality, it's a bit less) and you pass

by jkyle 11y ago

The point is watering your lawn is a drop in the giant reservoir. If only 20% of the water is being used by residents (in reality, it's a bit less) and you pass super aggressive water conservation laws targeting residential use such that it's reduced by 50% then you've conserved a whopping..... 10% In contrast, a mere 12% increase in agriculture efficiency gets you the same win. Targeting residents to curb the water crisis in CA is like targeting SNAP benefits as a solution to the deficit. It just plain won't work.

mentat 11y ago
Well said. Thank you for arguing with facts and numbers.
WillPostForFood 11y ago
Sure, but you were touting GDP as the way to target water reduction, which doesn't make sense. I agree water should be priced based on supply, which would bring more efficiency to use in farming, lawns, or whatever.
- jkyle 11y ago
  You misunderstood me. I updated with an edit to clarify in the original post. GDP is mentioned to show that increased cost of production for agriculture will not have a catastrophic effect on our economy....if you ask most Californians (or others), they often think agriculture is a huge proportion of our economy and requiring water efficiency would have a huge negative impact on our bottom line. Lost jobs, revenue, etc.
mindslight 11y ago
While this is true for the big picture, it's still fucked up that the status quo is for most everyone to have a well-watered lawn. And the response of "cities" like Los Angeles is to subsidize people's servants completely redoing their yards! Implementing water restrictions is incredibly easy - you declare "no outdoor water usage except on these two days of the week after 5pm" and issue fines to people who don't comply. But it is incompatible with Californian entitlement, because gasp the grass might get a little brown.
- vitd 11y ago
  I'm sorry, but have you ever been to Los Angeles? Where is this mythical place you're talking about with these mythical people? I live in Los Angeles proper, and the majority of my neighbors already had low-water lawns to begin with. Those that don't (including me because the owners of the house I rent don't want to change it) are basically just letting the lawn die because we understand the situation and really aren't that vain. Also, we do have watering restrictions and the city does give out fines if you don't follow them. I'm not sure what you're talking about, frankly.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    Actually yes, I'm on the west side right now. I'm in one of the few buildings without grass. The sidewalk across the street is damp every morning. Walking around, I often see pools of runoff that have persisted throughout the day. Most all the lawns are still being trimmed every single week. Maybe this neighborhood is just terrible. Are there actually any restrictions besides http://www.lawaterrestrictions.net/current-water-restrictions/ http://www.lawaterrestrictions.net/current-water-restriction... ? To someone used to the Northeast's late-summer restrictions those are laughable - you can still water your lawn every day of the week! Good on you for letting your lawn wither, but I assure you that the out of touch culture is alive and well.
- wallyhs 11y ago
  It's not just about the grass. When trees die, they become hazards and must be removed. That's expensive. Without trees, there are fewer birds. There is no shade. The sound of leaves is absent from the wind. Obviously, there are more important things for a society to worry about, but my point is that this issue is not just about grass. People seek out natural things such as plants. They put them in their homes, they hang paintings of them on their walls, and they decorate their cubicles with them. I don't think it is surprising that people want green lawns. It is depressing to live in a brown world. The answer seems to be to design _better_ lawns: plant grasses, shrubs, and trees which grow naturally in the area, do not require huge amounts of water, and are drought-resistant. I don't know about LA, but, in my area, this transition has been underway for years.
- 11y ago
intopieces 11y ago
I'll copy what I said above because it's relevant to your point as well: The problem, though, is that the water taken up by agriculture and the water taken up by people in cities does not come from the same big bucket. A drop of water saved by Ag doesn't equate to a drop of water that can be used in my shower. Infrastructure changes will have to happen and the 20% users will also have to make cuts.

by jkyle 11y ago

mentat 11y ago

Well said. Thank you for arguing with facts and numbers.

WillPostForFood 11y ago

Sure, but you were touting GDP as the way to target water reduction, which doesn't make sense. I agree water should be priced based on supply, which would bring more efficiency to use in farming, lawns, or whatever.

jkyle 11y ago
You misunderstood me. I updated with an edit to clarify in the original post. GDP is mentioned to show that increased cost of production for agriculture will not have a catastrophic effect on our economy....if you ask most Californians (or others), they often think agriculture is a huge proportion of our economy and requiring water efficiency would have a huge negative impact on our bottom line. Lost jobs, revenue, etc.

mindslight 11y ago

While this is true for the big picture, it's still fucked up that the status quo is for most everyone to have a well-watered lawn. And the response of "cities" like Los Angeles is to subsidize people's servants completely redoing their yards! Implementing water restrictions is incredibly easy - you declare "no outdoor water usage except on these two days of the week after 5pm" and issue fines to people who don't comply. But it is incompatible with Californian entitlement, because gasp the grass might get a little brown.

vitd 11y ago
I'm sorry, but have you ever been to Los Angeles? Where is this mythical place you're talking about with these mythical people? I live in Los Angeles proper, and the majority of my neighbors already had low-water lawns to begin with. Those that don't (including me because the owners of the house I rent don't want to change it) are basically just letting the lawn die because we understand the situation and really aren't that vain. Also, we do have watering restrictions and the city does give out fines if you don't follow them. I'm not sure what you're talking about, frankly.
- mindslight 11y ago
  Actually yes, I'm on the west side right now. I'm in one of the few buildings without grass. The sidewalk across the street is damp every morning. Walking around, I often see pools of runoff that have persisted throughout the day. Most all the lawns are still being trimmed every single week. Maybe this neighborhood is just terrible. Are there actually any restrictions besides http://www.lawaterrestrictions.net/current-water-restrictions/ http://www.lawaterrestrictions.net/current-water-restriction... ? To someone used to the Northeast's late-summer restrictions those are laughable - you can still water your lawn every day of the week! Good on you for letting your lawn wither, but I assure you that the out of touch culture is alive and well.
wallyhs 11y ago
It's not just about the grass. When trees die, they become hazards and must be removed. That's expensive. Without trees, there are fewer birds. There is no shade. The sound of leaves is absent from the wind. Obviously, there are more important things for a society to worry about, but my point is that this issue is not just about grass. People seek out natural things such as plants. They put them in their homes, they hang paintings of them on their walls, and they decorate their cubicles with them. I don't think it is surprising that people want green lawns. It is depressing to live in a brown world. The answer seems to be to design _better_ lawns: plant grasses, shrubs, and trees which grow naturally in the area, do not require huge amounts of water, and are drought-resistant. I don't know about LA, but, in my area, this transition has been underway for years.
11y ago

intopieces 11y ago

I'll copy what I said above because it's relevant to your point as well: The problem, though, is that the water taken up by agriculture and the water taken up by people in cities does not come from the same big bucket. A drop of water saved by Ag doesn't equate to a drop of water that can be used in my shower. Infrastructure changes will have to happen and the 20% users will also have to make cuts.