Originally Posted by red-beard (Post 8270886)

Most is good. But, the no flush and low flush toilets are not the answer. Look at the City of San Francisco and how much bleach they had to dump in the sewer after installing low flow toilets.

Originally Posted by Don Ro (Post 8270230)

... many building campuses were constructed and it was required that a certain % of the land had to be grass, turf, lawn.

Originally Posted by jyl (Post 8270811)

Agriculture uses 80% to 90% (depending on how measured) of available water in California. 10 percent of California’s water goes to almond farming.

Agriculture provides <5% of California economic output.

I see some potential actions right there.

(And I think most of you are missing the point, by focusing on residential lawns etc.)

Originally Posted by jyl (Post 8271768)

I don't agree with the "blanket" statement that all of California's agriculture is a critically important sector.

I think much of agricultural crops are very important and even indispensable . . . but some are luxury crops that are only possible due to unsustainably cheap water.

Suppose, for example, that California grew half the almonds that it does. According to the information above (if it is false, please prove it), that would cut water use by 5%. Which is - enormous.

What is the downside? Almonds quadruple in price? Herseys needs to find a different nut? The hippies can't drink almond milk by the gallon? Amaretto becomes a few percent costlier? Is that such a critical loss?

Maybe some crops should simply be grown elsewhere, where there is more water.

Originally Posted by Noah930 (Post 8271714)

That's true in at least certain cities around LA, too. A few years ago I recall reading an article in the LA Times where a homeowner (either in Glendale or Pasadena?) was ticketed because he ripped up his lawn and switched to a desert landscape design. City regulations specified something like 40% of his property had to be "green" (meaning not his house). Dirt and a few plants did not constitute "green" in terms of grass and bushes and trees, so someone complained to the city and got in trouble.

Originally Posted by Daves911L (Post 8271548)

This has been interesting to read. Not so much because of the topic itself, but because it reveals how little the general population in this country understands the world around them. The OP's original intent was obviously aimed at ag, and what he must feel is a wasteful and unjust system, where a relative few control a precious resource. But he (and some of the others who posted) are truly blind.

It is correct to point out that ag uses many many times more water than residential consumption. Although, the M&I use in California, due to the general affluence of the population and its fixation on a luxurious (water intensive) lifestyle, is much larger in proportion to ag than most other places on the planet. The point not commonly understood is that ag is not the final consumer, but the middle-man in water consumption. When JYL bites into a tomato, he is consuming all the water that went into producing it. When Moses gets the munchies and goes out for a midnight cheeseburger, he is consuming all the water that went into producing it. The farmer just directed it from the source to the crop, to produce the food products that our population consumes. Roughly 2% of our population is involved in agriculture today, so roughly 2% of water consumed by humans (more on that later) is consumed by ag, and the remainder is mostly M&I (urban population).

This is a wealthy nation, with immense economic output. Agriculture is an important part, but numerically in many parts of the country a relatively small component of the economy. So why is it so zealously subsidized? Because all wealth has its underpinnings in either agriculture, or extractive resources. Of those two, ag is renewable. If you are not a farmer, or logger, or a miner, or an oilman you are not producing wealth. You are re-arranging, re-distributing, or somehow manipulating the wealth produced by others. You may be producing a marvelous product, or providing an important service, but ultimately whatever you make or do is only valuable because others produce wealth from the sun and earth. Without ag, civilization stops.

As disgusted as I am with our government and politics these days, I have to concede that there are still some pretty smart people involved in it. There are enough guys at the top that understand, and ag is always quietly supported even when majority opinion appears against it. There is also a significant national security angle. We are a still a net exporter of food. Ag represents income for our nation from beyond our borders, but more importantly gives us a strategic advantage in dealing with many other potential friends and enemies. A nation that can feed others is strong and powerful. A nation that has to depend on others for food is enslaved. California ag is a very large part of this equation. It is a conscious and explicit decision on the part of federal, state, and even local governments to subsidize ag, because it is in the public interest, even though much of the general public doesn't see it.

Ag efficiency is always desirable. You will find very few farmers not in favor of it. But it can be a double edged sword, and sometimes a case of "be careful what you wish for". The irrigation miracle in the Middle East is a remarkable technological achievement. Unfortunately it originated as a desperate measure, and is not sustainable. Israel developed extremely high efficiencies, putting darn near every last molecule of water into food production. The salt left behind will kill them. As California is to the US, Egypt is to Europe. The expansion of Egyptian ag from the Nile valley out into the desert is also similarly doomed. For a time it can be highly productive, but eventually the salt will doom it. California has many areas that could easily suffer a similar fate. Extremely high efficiency (the "drip" systems suggested by some) will hasten that fate, or tip the balance towards salt death in areas that could be otherwise be managed sustainably.

The definition of efficiency is also important. To the general public, it is often assumed to mean doing with less. Producing that tomato with less water, freeing up some of the resource for some other purpose. In reality it often takes the form of producing more with the same or more of water. The ag view of efficiency is 1.5 tomatoes from the same amount of water as before. Or using 25% more water and producing 2 tomatoes. The "efficiency paradox" has appeared in recent years. In some places where investments have been made in agricultural efficiency, wetlands have disappeared and aquifers have started to decline.

Producing food requires a lot of water. But a very substantial portion of the water ag uses is not "consumptive use" and in fact returns to the natural system. The fact compilers (Sierra club, and other enviro groups being prime examples) have a habit of counting all the water that ag handles as "consumption" and do not consider that which is returned to the system. The natural system (forests, riparian vegetation, simple evaporation) also consumes quite a bit of water. More often than not, naturally occurring river system consumption gets lumped in with ag. Another big component of ag "consumption" is water which recharges aquifers. In many areas the application of water to farm ground, or the conveyance system to deliver it there, results in the infiltration of surface water to ground water. Somebody else then pumps it from the ground and uses it. Sometimes this is another farmer, but often it is a city (or individual). It may appear somewhere as a natural spring or seep (many of these are wildlife refuges). So, even more water actually "consumed" by either M&I or the natural system gets incorrectly attributed to agricultural consumption. I'm not saying that ag doesn't use a lot of water. It does. But both the M&I folks, and the Enviro groups do a really good PR job, smearing ag while minimizing the impacts of their own particular interests.

BE911 had the most profound comment in this whole thread. The resource is limited, and there are increasingly more humans trying to use it. I recall maybe 15 or 20 years back a big fight in the Sierra club over population growth. Eventually politics trumped science and they chose to stick their head in the sand over the issue. In my opinion this destroyed any credibility they might have had and missing a chance to address the real problem head-on. There were over 3 billion people on the planet when I was born. I think there are what, some 8 billion now? And I'm pretty sure that the average daily calorie intake for that population is higher now than 50 years ago. We are going to eat ourselves out of existence.

Also thanks to porsch-o-phile for mentioning the "energy-water-nexus". The two go hand in hand. There is no free ride. Energy production is always a trade-off, and generally the trade involves water. But water production (de-sal, or other things) requires energy. Typically lots of it. Which in turn requires more water. Yet we continue to create larger energy needs with an ever growing and more affluent population. We are going to electrify ourselves out of existence too.

For those of you who suggest trucking, trains, and pipelines, do the math on energy required to lift a gallon of water 500 ft, or 5000 ft above sea level. Then multiply that by the gallons used. Then subtract the water consumed by the energy production required by the lift. It will be a sobering equation, matched sadly only by the water-into-corn-into-gasoline-into-politics calculation.

By way of disclosure, I'm not a Californian, or a farmer. One grandfather was a farmer, and I have 3 uncles who still farm in the upper mid-west. I am thankful every day for the 2% of our population who feeds the remaining 98%, and they feed us extremely well. There are bad farmers of course, just as with any profession. They usually don't make it very long. The great majority are good stewards of the land, and carefully care for the tools and resources on which their business depends.

Farming is a business, and I have to say that as a group farmers are some of the sharpest business people I have ever met. They have to be. Economics drive the crop produced. Nuts in California today are the result of market forces, not the farmer saying "hey I like to grow nuts". Crops produced were different a few decades ago, and they will be different a few decades from now, responding to market forces. Alfalfa in the desert is a particularly easy target for the critics, until it is considered as a business driven by markets. Do you realize how much hay can be produced in the desert? It can be hard to produce hay in the lush farmland of Wisconsin. Sure, it grows naturally and beautifully, and in that relatively cool and wet climate you can't depend on a week of dry weather to get it cut, baled, and stored. Maybe you can get one good crop in a summer, two if you are lucky (I'm guessing, someone in Wisconsin correct me)? Out in the desert of California maybe 8 crops per year (again, I'm guessing based on our local climate, where 5 is common)? With irrigation the farmer can precisely control the moisture and nutrient content. Both in the hay production, and the animal feeding end of it, that is highly efficient agriculture for the final product consumed in New York, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, and Seattle.

DG

Originally Posted by Moses (Post 8271859)

If almonds are consuming the same amount of water as the population in California something is terribly wrong.

Originally Posted by KNS (Post 8272138)

I hope LA County has changed their position on this. Las Vegas gets it - they'll pay you to remove your lawn and plant a desert landscape.

Originally Posted by jyl (Post 8271768)

I don't agree with the "blanket" statement that all of California's agriculture is a critically important sector.

I think much of agricultural crops are very important and even indispensable . . . but some are luxury crops that are only possible due to unsustainably cheap water.

Suppose, for example, that California grew half the almonds that it does. According to the information above (if it is false, please prove it), that would cut water use by 5%. Which is - enormous.

What is the downside? Almonds quadruple in price? Herseys needs to find a different nut? The hippies can't drink almond milk by the gallon? Amaretto becomes a few percent costlier? Is that such a critical loss?

Maybe some crops should simply be grown elsewhere, where there is more water.

Originally Posted by jyl (Post 8272407)

The farmer's economic decision is only rational because he pays a low cost for piped water and an even lower cost (after the initial capital cost) for well water. The true value of water is not reflected in his decision. It should be reflected in everyone's decisions - the suburban resident who is choosing whether to have a lawn and pool, the business that is choosing whether to have a fountain or run a golf course, the water district pumping aquifers faster than they are recharged, and the farmer choosing what crops to grow, and the food buyer choosing whether to use almonds or some other food. Water is precious in California, it should be priced accordingly, then economics will work correctly.

Originally Posted by Tobra (Post 8273021)

The cost of water does not need to be artificially increased, as it is being kept artificially low now.

Originally Posted by BK911 (Post 8270198)

People are out of water but still watering grass? Seriously?

Originally Posted by KNS (Post 8272138)

I hope LA County has changed their position on this. Las Vegas gets it - they'll pay you to remove your lawn and plant a desert landscape.

Originally Posted by Noah930 (Post 8272255)

I don't know for certain. The article I read was probably from 5-10 years ago, and I wouldn't be surprised if the law--on the books, at least--remains unchanged. But the consensus Has definitely changed, so I would be surprised something like this would land you I court in 2014.

Now some public agency is paying you something like $2/sq ft to replace your grass with artificial turf. So you can still maintain that green look, if not the actual plant organisms that inspire it. (Wonder how that affects global warming.) I haven't done it, yet, but am thinking about it on my list of home projects. Turf gets much hotter than real grass, though, which is a potential issue as I have little kids and we actually play outside in our yards on a daily basis.