Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only because of a treaty. If there was monetary compensation for the water I think you would get the states and provinces on board in a hurry. I’d be more concerned about the insane water rights problems being shoved upstream to people in the great lakes basins. Telling me I can’t collect rain water to water my garden so somebody who lives in a dessert 2,000 miles away can be guaranteed the ability to water their law…
Rain barrels are legal in all states bordering the lakes. It isn't like you're stealing water that will disappear from the local environment. It's just a time delay.
Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?
321–330 of 347 posts
Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I gathered this is not about the San Joaquin Valley farms, it's about Vegas, Phoenix, Palm Springs & Desert Hot Springs (Riverside County) and water for people living there. Vegas went from 230,000 in 1970 to over 2.5 million residents in those years. Phoenix from 870,000 to 4,652,000. Riverside County from 44,579 to 2,544,820 So now we've got over 10 Million people living in the desert in just 3 those area…
I'm talking about the entire southwest, not just San Joaquin Valley. In agriculture, Riverside County is the 13th most productive county in the state in planted crops with $1.2 billion in cash receipts on about 210,000 acres [1]. That's more than any single county in Florida [2] based on crop value and the entire state of Florida produces 5-6 times more agricultural products than Riverside County on ten times the acr…
I don't have a problem with moving water to support agriculture in those State. That's something that was fairly well solved in the San Joaquin Valley long ago.
But that is not what this opinion piece purposes. They summed that up with "Los Angeles couldn’t exist without the California Aqueduct. Phoenix and other cities in the Southwest are in the same boat. Their future survival depends upon finding large amounts of new water."
That is an entirely different issue. In all of Arizona there are approximately 138,000 people that work in agriculture. That's not even in the top 10 industries in Phoenix. About 40% of the water used in Phoenix is used for farming. Phoenix-area residents use over 50% of the water they get from city water supplies for watering lawns and maintaining swimming pools. [1]
When you look at the growth of metro areas there it seems pretty clear to me that growth is not sustainable.
1: https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions/how-much-water-are-w...
Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?
#323As a reference, China has been doing this a similar project to interconnect the North (think Beijing etc) and South (think Shanghai) water system. Heck, they have been doing it since hundreds of year ago [2]. So I guess there is a precedent. Based on this thread, I would guess that a large amount of the problem will not be an engineering one, but political and social one. Constructing such a large mega project to div…
There was also this project in USSR: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea So much water in that lake, right? But it went from 4th largest in the world to no lake.
Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?
#324Moving water West by train sounds like it could be a viable solution. A DOT liquid car can hold 30,000gal, and 30,000gal/sec is the proposed solution from the article, provides at least a sense of scale required. Trains are probably more efficient for moving water uphill than pipes and pumps due to friction losses in the pipe. Bonus points because the infrastructure already exists! All the train would have to do is g…
Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know you said protein, but calories are really the metric we want to use here. TL;DR: 2.1 calories/gallon for almonds, 5.3 c/g for tofu, 1,558 c/g for beef. Almonds consume 3.2 gallons of water each for just shy of 7 calories. 2.18 calories per gallon. Cows consume ~3,200 gallons of water from birth to slaughter, where they produce about 6 million calories. 1,875 calories per gallon. An additional 50 bales of hay t…
What are your sources for the cow info? I'm getting more like 30 kcal/gallon. A cow drinks 9-12 gallons per day [1] (assuming not lactating, which takes a lot more water; let's just say these are cows being raised purely for slaughter). Call it 10 gallons/day on average. Cows raised for slaughter live 4-6 years [2]. Call it 5 years on average. 10 gallons/day * 355 days/year * 5 years/cow ≈ 17750 gallons/cow. Finally,…
Having raised cows and some Googling. Your numbers are for dairy cows and not meat cows. Dairy cows consume a ton of water because they are intended to produce a liquid nearly non-stop, and while they are eventually slaughtered for meat it mostly ends up in dog food.
Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?
#326Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a great idea. People need to connect all the big problems with animal husbandry to their immediate lives so they have impetus to stop eating meat. Most people have virtually no knowledge of how bad meat really is. They just see a product on the shelf that they strongly desire.
So people would just stop eating meat and that's the end of it? Or might it be that you'd then "activate" a sizable chunk of 92%+ of Americans who eat meat to vote for the next candidate who runs on a pro-meat platform. That's a sizable enough influence that the next election would likely look like one big beef industry commercial. If being vegetarian or vegan is an important value to you then the real way to make re…
Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?
#328Most water use is for agriculture. Most agricultural water use is for meat. Beef is by far the least efficient way to turn water (and other stuff) into protein. I propose we tax meat nationwide according to its water use, instead of dreaming up unrealistic and unnecessary megaprojects.
I know you said protein, but calories are really the metric we want to use here. TL;DR: 2.1 calories/gallon for almonds, 5.3 c/g for tofu, 1,558 c/g for beef. Almonds consume 3.2 gallons of water each for just shy of 7 calories. 2.18 calories per gallon. Cows consume ~3,200 gallons of water from birth to slaughter, where they produce about 6 million calories. 1,875 calories per gallon. An additional 50 bales of hay t…
Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are your sources for the cow info? I'm getting more like 30 kcal/gallon. A cow drinks 9-12 gallons per day [1] (assuming not lactating, which takes a lot more water; let's just say these are cows being raised purely for slaughter). Call it 10 gallons/day on average. Cows raised for slaughter live 4-6 years [2]. Call it 5 years on average. 10 gallons/day * 355 days/year * 5 years/cow ≈ 17750 gallons/cow. Finally,…
> What are your sources for the cow info? Having raised cows and some Googling. Your numbers are for dairy cows and not meat cows. Dairy cows consume a ton of water because they are intended to produce a liquid nearly non-stop, and while they are eventually slaughtered for meat it mostly ends up in dog food.
Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?
#330Most water use is for agriculture. Most agricultural water use is for meat. Beef is by far the least efficient way to turn water (and other stuff) into protein. I propose we tax meat nationwide according to its water use, instead of dreaming up unrealistic and unnecessary megaprojects.
Cows are actually extremely efficient at turning water into calories. Almonds, alfalfa, and soy consume 2.5 orders of magnitude more water to generate an equivalent amount of calories as a cow.