Bloomberg has an excellent article on what, exactly, “environmental uses” means. Essentially that’s every gallon of water that, once it has settled into a river, successfully flows into the ocean. If any water is released from behind a dam, any part of a river is downstream of any dams… if, in short, a river in California has a mouth, then the water coming out of it is part of that oft quoted 50%.
We can absolutely choose to see that as a waste, but it doesn’t change the fact that agriculture uses four times as much water as everything else. KQED had some great stats and graphs on residential water use. A little more than half of it is used outdoors. So if everyone in California stopped watering their lawns and gardens, stopped washing their cars, and gave up their swimming pools, the state would save as much water as if farmers decreased their water use by 12.5%.
Agriculture is absolutely important to California’s welfare, but is it four times as important as everything else combined? As many others in the thread have said, California doesn’t have a water problem. It has an agriculture problem.
if, in short, a river in California has a mouth, then the water coming out of it is part of that oft quoted 50%.
(..)
Agriculture is absolutely important to California’s welfare, but is it four times as important as everything else combined?
Ok, so even if we reduce the 50% somewhat, it still takes up about twice as much as the water used for farming. Are the various environmental causes twice as important as agriculture? Also, as far as agriculture, it is using water for economically productive purposes, most of the other uses, e.g., lawns, swimming pools, aren’t.
Bloomberg has an excellent article on what, exactly, “environmental uses” means. Essentially that’s every gallon of water that, once it has settled into a river, successfully flows into the ocean. If any water is released from behind a dam, any part of a river is downstream of any dams… if, in short, a river in California has a mouth, then the water coming out of it is part of that oft quoted 50%.
We can absolutely choose to see that as a waste, but it doesn’t change the fact that agriculture uses four times as much water as everything else. KQED had some great stats and graphs on residential water use. A little more than half of it is used outdoors. So if everyone in California stopped watering their lawns and gardens, stopped washing their cars, and gave up their swimming pools, the state would save as much water as if farmers decreased their water use by 12.5%.
Agriculture is absolutely important to California’s welfare, but is it four times as important as everything else combined? As many others in the thread have said, California doesn’t have a water problem. It has an agriculture problem.
Ok, so even if we reduce the 50% somewhat, it still takes up about twice as much as the water used for farming. Are the various environmental causes twice as important as agriculture? Also, as far as agriculture, it is using water for economically productive purposes, most of the other uses, e.g., lawns, swimming pools, aren’t.