Population growth is undeniable but as previously noted the vast majority of water is used for agriculture and that food gets distributed throughout the world.

The real issue is resource management, either agricultural use should have been cut back years ago or they should have started planning for the additional demand. As we are growing food for a global market I don’t think taking water from other parts of the country is a bail out. Having said that, redirecting some of the Sacramento Rivers water would help and it’s not far from where we need it.

They are already doing that, with plans for more, but that only helps SoCal, does nothing for Arizona, Nevada or Colorado. We currently have a drought on up here too, and have been mismanaging the water from the Sierra Nevada snow pack since before I was born.

All the conservation is directed at residential use, which is a tiny portion of the total usage, in California anyway. For the most part, all that low hanging fruit has already been picked anyway. Everyone already has low flow shower heads and toilets. They have been limiting water of landscaping and encourage people to switch to cactus or something like that instead of grass. I got in the habit of being frugal with water left over from any fresh water you wanted to drink or bathe in, you had to make it. The crappers and urinals used seawater.

The agricultural use, that is money right there, and money talks.

Interesting how dry Phoenix is. Three hours south, and we've been getting record rainfall the past 3 years. Normally, our vegetation is brown most of the year, and greens up during monsoons. We've been staying mostly green. It's really quite strange.

Arizona residences shouldn't have lawns. The climate can't handle that amout of water. Having agriculture in a historically dry arid areas is insane.

Developers overpopulate (residence, commercial, or agricultural) in low rainfall areas and then blame water shortages on climate change. No, you picked a bad area.

I agree to a point.

First, there is a tremendous shortage of housing in this country. We've known it for quite some time, but the barriers to building (municipal and state fees, environmental concerns) have created a systemic problem. So what little is being built is still very much in demand (even with the increase in mortgage rates).

And those developers, they only build houses where people want to live, and that's usually driven primarily by where jobs are. It does them no good to build in rural Missouri, for example, if there's no large employment base.

Better water resource management, combined with less turf, less golf courses etc would help.

As far as crops go, I suspect if they become to expensive to irrigate they will eventually move to less arid climes.

And then there's industry, which seems to me easier to relocate to areas with more plentiful water resources.

My $.02 anyways.

That's WAY too broad a statement. There are plenty of areas in Arizona that are not desert. Arizona is a huge state.

Most of those less arid areas can't hold a candle to the yield/efficiency/profitability of food production in the desert (as along as water is available). Farming in the desert You have essentially unlimited sunshine, and you control the "rain". Sure, stuff grows naturally and beautifully in Wisconsin, New York, and Tennessee. You can just grow a whole lot more of it, a lot faster, and do it year round in Arizona.

I am very suspicious of the blanket statement "Most of those less arid areas can't hold a candle to the yield/efficiency/profitability of food production in the desert (as along as water is available)."

This sounds like a statement made by someone who knows nothing about farming.

I have my doubts about the comparative fertility of the soil in the desert versus, say, Kansas or Nebraska. It would be interesting to look at the yield per acre, and total produce cost per acre (including water costs) of corn, for example.

It also should be noted that different things grow in different climates. The comparison (above) mentioning Wisconsin and New York makes me wonder how well apples, potatoes, or cranberries grow in the desert.

Literally an apples and oranges comparison, I think.

Follow-up to my message above regarding produce production costs.

It turns out that there is a direct comparison available:
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=ARIZONA
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=NEBRASKA

While there are things grown in Arizona that are not grown in Nebraska (cotton and lemons, for example) due to the climate, direct comparisons are illustrative:

Corn, grain:
Nebraska: 194 bu/acre, 5.4 $/bu
Arizona: 181 bu/acre, 6.6 $/bu

Hay:
Nebraska: 2.46 tons/acre, 140 $/ton
Arizona: 7.94 tons/acre, 205 $/ton

Continuing down the list, there are some items that the yields/acre are higher in the desert and some that are not. I did not, however, see any single item grown in both places where the cost per bu (or cwt or lb) is lower in Arizona.

I understand and agree. You want to live in L.A.? No problem, pay 20 times the normal rate per gallon for water so that they have the funds to do things like desalination. (a # arbitrarily contrived to make the point that you need very expensive systems to be able to carry the demand). Can't afford it? Don't live there and then complain there isn't enough water and then demand that the east coast ship their water out to you for bail you out of your bad decision. (You in the general sense and not a reply to daepp)
Can't afford a Rolex or a Porsche? Buy what you can afford instead of demanding someone else subsidize you.

It's not just us

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-62578571

And...

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/17/asia/china-heat-drought-climate-yangtze-intl/index.html

Most of the water in Gibraltar is either from desalination or brought in by boat as I understand it. They also collect some from fog/rain from the side of "the rock." We were told that desalination is expensive.

I just read yesterday that Lk Mead has risen a little and they think with the flooding in Vegas that it may go back up even more. No where what is needed but any help is good.

Arizona just got a 21% reduction of Colorado river water for AG.
The recent monsoons raised the lake level 18".
The Colorado River Indian Tribes sold water rights worth 3 feet of Lake Mead water to AZ.
Lake Powell is @ 3500 + feet of elevation. It's a long way up from the Mississippi river.

I've read that it is 130 feet down.

Yes, that is true. The graph is current as of August 17, 2022

I hope this upward trend continues.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1660758853.jpg

I guess 128.5 feet down now

Chart above says 186.55

Did you notice I was responding to someone I quoted?

You do realize the lake level at Lake Mead is manipulated for political purposes, right?