Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe recent scientific studies have said the California drought is not caused by climate change. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/new-study-cal...
I believe the most recent theory is that the drought cycle is normal but the severity of the drought is influenced by climate change.
California has about one year of water left
231–240 of 405 posts
Re: California has about one year of water left
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, if people can't afford water to drink, they're clearly not valuable enough to live. If a farm can't afford water for crops, the crops weren't profitable enough to grow anyway. And if the rest of the nation can't afford food since some foods will be scarce without California farms, they should just be more productive. No need for regulation!
> The average American uses about 90 gallons of water each day in the home, and each American household uses approximately 107,000 gallons of water each year. For the most part, we use water treated to meet drinking water standards to flush toilets, water lawns, and wash dishes, clothes, and cars. In fact, 50-70 percent of home water is used for watering lawns and gardens.Nearly 14 percent of the water a typical home…
Domestic (municipal) water in California is already quite expensive. While adopting steeply graduated pricing would indeed be a market-friendly way to end most irrigation of lawns and ornamentals, that's literally a drop in the bucket and would do nothing to alleviate the state's water shortage (drought or not). First, many Californians don't have lawns. Second, many who do have already reduced or stopped irrigation. There's less savings than you think to be had there. As for the rest of your points, the amount of water we're talking about is simply not significant. Yes, it would likely be worthwhile to fix leaks; that's often inexpensive, though it also provides a very modest reduction in waste. The fact that nonpotable water can be used for most household purposes is moot; few people have access to a source of nonpotable water, and installing a graywater system is usually cost-prohibitive. Worse, graywater is not nearly as useful as clean but nonpotable water, unless intermediate treatment is added as well. That all represents a large investment for a small return, and in any case the problem in California isn't the cost of treating water but the lack of any water at all. Spending hundreds or thousand of dollars (at least!) on a graywater system so you can save a few gallons a day flushing toilets with recycled water is a poor investment even if the price of water were several times higher, not to mention that there would be no incentive for landlords to make such an investment even if it were profitable for homeowners.
But really, your opening sentence puts itself in focus: the units you use are gallons. The problem in Califonia is not one of gallons but of cubic feet per second and millions of acre-feet per year (the units that are actually used in the water industry and usually in water rights law). Household water use, wasteful though it may be, is too small a share of the state's consumption to constitute a crucial part of any solution. Public service messages about conservation, higher or graduated pricing, and mandatory rationing are used primarily to remind people that water is a limited resource; these approaches help to rein in rampant waste but do little else. They will not play a major role in reducing total consumption and will play no role at all in increasing supply, if in fact that is even possible. In short, these approaches are at best a secondary part of any solution.
Instead, as others have pointed out, the focus needs to be on agriculture and, to a lesser extent, industry. Agricultural users pay far less for water than domestic municipal customers, and they use the lion's share of it statewide. However painful the adjustments that will be required, no solution that does not radically reduce agricultural consumption will be an effective or meaningful one. Even if no one were allowed to live in California except farmers, the crisis would still be severe and those farmers would still have to bear the burden of addressing it. There is no escaping this, and if the public messaging centers on domestic use even if agriculture is a major behind-the-scenes focus, the planners will be doing the people of the state a great disservice by encouraging them to believe that largely irrelevant changes in their own behavior will address the problem. It would be much better to encourage domestic users to make sensible investments in saving water that will provide them with a return, but to openly acknowledge that the big-picture problems will require agricultural users to make most of the adjustments.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes... Destroying an entire industry in a country is a win win...
Growing water intensive crops like rice in California, which it grows a good deal of, is just stupid. That is an industry which needs to die. I'd argue the same for almonds, which are basically a water intensive cash crop.
Almonds use 10% of the state's water supply. The irony is that almonds and apricots have been grown in the Santa Clara valley and surrounding areas without irrigration until tech booms led to orchards being pulled out and replaced with office complexes.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that California is so ideal for agriculture because of its climate (with the water scarcity being the big liability, the can we've been kicking down the road for decades). Other states, either individually or collectively, do not have the year-round, Mediterranean, relatively predictable climate to take on the load that California would drop. This includes not only total square acreage of arable,…
There are other places in the world where these crops can be grown. People in those countries will be more than happy to trade us almonds, rice, bananas and the like in exchange for things we are great at producing like software and music. It's a win-win.
Although I would not consider myself an expert, I know it is far more complicated than you appear to think it is. It is not just the climate, as previously mentioned, or the access to fresh water sources, it is also the fertility and durability of the topsoil. There are significant tradeoffs regarding the productivity and soil durability that lead to depletion or pollution because our demand is far beyond sustainable supply.
Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that the human population is far too large and puts far too many demands and strains on nature for anything like sustainability.
So, someone may bring up large scale hydroponics, especially of genetically modified produce, but that is really just another can being kicked down the road, because no matter how many tricks you come up with and how hard you push the pendulum, it will eventually come swinging back with a vengeance, especially the farther it is pushed out of its range.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that California is so ideal for agriculture because of its climate (with the water scarcity being the big liability, the can we've been kicking down the road for decades). Other states, either individually or collectively, do not have the year-round, Mediterranean, relatively predictable climate to take on the load that California would drop. This includes not only total square acreage of arable,…
There are other places in the world where these crops can be grown. People in those countries will be more than happy to trade us almonds, rice, bananas and the like in exchange for things we are great at producing like software and music. It's a win-win.
We don't want to have to rely on other nations for our food supply.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the rest of the country could grow the same crops as "America's Salad Bowl" we would. California is ideal for those crops and without the large population would be fine. It is probably past time to actually push desalination plants or convince a lot of people to move somewhere else.
Many of the water-greedy crops being grown in California with their water subsidies are hardly important for the country. Almonds are not a staple crop; they are not necessary for our society and should not be valued highly enough to justify the Californian water used to grow them. If it is a matter of farmers needing almonds to remain profitable enough to grow more important foods, then we would be better served by…
Why not just buy the more important foods?
Re: California has about one year of water left
#237Honestly we should probably start building desalination facilities statewide so that we can begin to supplant the natural supply. The one being built in San Diego is a few months away from coming online and it will be providing 33% of the city's water supply iirc. I know people have talked about it in the past, but usually the response is "but they are an eye sore if I go to the beach." Well, what would you rather do…
The waste brine water is pretty toxic to the environment. Nobody believes that this will cause people to die of dehydration. Worst case scenario, if you look beyond the severe inconvenience factor of having to regulate when you can water your lawn, or if you can fill your pool, lots of farmers would lose their jobs. Almonds and rice won't be able to continue under these conditions. Beyond that, there is plenty of water to go around to keep people hydrated.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#238Disclaimer: I have no clue if what I'm proposing is realistic or not, but: Perhaps the federal government should step in and gradually step down the level of subsidies given to farmers in California and gradually increase subsidies given to NEW farmers in other, more water rich parts of the country. This would have the effect of moving farms to more sustainable locations in the country. Sure, the types of crops produ…
What would happen if the gov't did nothing?
1. Water would become more scarce in California. Not everyone would get what they need.
2. Price of produce would go up, since there is a smaller supply.
3. We'd start to import more produce (either from outside the country or other states) because the price is the same or lower than the new, higher CA price.
4. Other farmers, who don't grow what CA grows, would start to because it's more profitable as prices rise.
The gov't doesn't really have to do anything. That's the beauty of the free market.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of the water-greedy crops being grown in California with their water subsidies are hardly important for the country. Almonds are not a staple crop; they are not necessary for our society and should not be valued highly enough to justify the Californian water used to grow them. If it is a matter of farmers needing almonds to remain profitable enough to grow more important foods, then we would be better served by…
Why not just buy the more important foods?
Subsides for more important crops could probably work. However from what I understand, much of the popularity of almonds has to do with them being a reliable crop that are fairly easy to count on. You don't need to replant them every year, so they are less risky than other crops.
Subsidies for more important crops would probably have to match the profitability of almonds and offset the additional risk. Still, it should be possible.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is hard to tell if you are trolling, a California farmer, or just being plain obtuse. tl;dr - NO. It would not make a difference. Google your question. The answer is below for you. Source: KCET article. February 10, 2014. California's water budget is skewed heavily toward agriculture. The conventional estimate is that 80 percent of the water used in California flows into the state's multi-billion-dollar agricultur…
No, I'm actually asking the question since Wikipedia's quote is "In an average year, about 40% of California's water is used for agricultural purposes". Which makes me wonder about how far down California is that it is now 80%?
The figures used in the Wikipedia article include "environmental" water use (water that flows to the sea in streams, etc. most other sources do not include this in their figures. Environmental "use" accounts for 50% of total water use in the state and why Wikipedia's 40% for Ag is everyone else's 80%.