What is the west going to do about this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only 10% of California's water use is urban (aka residential). Almond orchards also use 10% of California's water and half of those almonds are grown for export. See anything wrong with this picture?

No. What’s wrong with exporting almonds? Don’t we want an economy where we make and export some things?

So California residents should be told to shower while standing in a bucket so that we can provide almonds to the world?

No, California should engineer solutions to provide fresh water to everyone who needs it. We have the technology, just have to shove the naysayers out of the way. Showering, swimming pools, almonds, and pistachios are all net-positives for society.

So California needs to engineer solutions so the world can eat almonds?

they should engineer cost-effective solutions so that their own almond growers (and everyday citizens) can have water at a reasonable price. then everyone can decide whether it makes sense to continue growing almonds or filling their swimming pools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only 10% of California's water use is urban (aka residential). Almond orchards also use 10% of California's water and half of those almonds are grown for export. See anything wrong with this picture?

No. What’s wrong with exporting almonds? Don’t we want an economy where we make and export some things?

So California residents should be told to shower while standing in a bucket so that we can provide almonds to the world?

No, California should engineer solutions to provide fresh water to everyone who needs it. We have the technology, just have to shove the naysayers out of the way. Showering, swimming pools, almonds, and pistachios are all net-positives for society.

So California needs to engineer solutions so the world can eat almonds?

they should engineer cost-effective solutions so that their own almond growers (and everyday citizens) can have water at a reasonable price. then everyone can decide whether it makes sense to continue growing almonds or filling their swimming pools.

It's not a choice between growing almonds and filling swimming pools. Growing almonds takes the same amount of water as ALL urban uses but yet California residents are asked to cut their water use. Makes no sense. Stop growing almonds for export and California has no water shortage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should just make water out of the ocean, would solve all these issues

Desalination through reverse osmosis is very real, and the obvious and ultimate solution. They just have to wait out the environmentalists and the NIMBYs who will throw every wrench they can into the process until the vast majority of people who aren't paying attention are forced to confront the issue.

The ultimate solution is to not use so much water unnecessarily. Yes, desalination can help. But, the oceans have an ecosystem and balance too. You can just start effing with that and not expect to negatively impact the oceans.

You can take a LOT of water out of the Pacific Ocean before you start affecting its ecosystems. I mean...look at it on your kid's globe. It's pretty big, don't you think?

This is so short-sighted, I don't even know what to say.

NP and trying to educate myself - wouldn't the melting icecaps offset the water removed?

[Anonymous]

There’s negative externalities to growing almonds where almonds are not meant to be grown. Other crops could be grown and exported at overall greater efficiency and profit. As long as negative externalities are not priced-in the exported product, there won’t be a solution.

[Anonymous]

Israel desalinates all its water. It can work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should just make water out of the ocean, would solve all these issues

Desalination through reverse osmosis is very real, and the obvious and ultimate solution. They just have to wait out the environmentalists and the NIMBYs who will throw every wrench they can into the process until the vast majority of people who aren't paying attention are forced to confront the issue.

The ultimate solution is to not use so much water unnecessarily. Yes, desalination can help. But, the oceans have an ecosystem and balance too. You can just start effing with that and not expect to negatively impact the oceans.

You can take a LOT of water out of the Pacific Ocean before you start affecting its ecosystems. I mean...look at it on your kid's globe. It's pretty big, don't you think?

Not to support billions of peoples excessing water habits. Plus, you add that climate change is ALREADY affecting its ocean currents . . . This is not the full answer. Maybe part of it at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or learn to live with less water? I do think its insane that people have lived in these arid areas and insist on having green grass, pools, etc instead of learning to live within the environment that is there.

I grew up in an arid area and I can tell you've never been. The area was designed with limiting water usage. People had small yards of often native plants. Every neighborhood had at least one large grassy area for kids to play in that was maintained by the city often using gray water or no water. The small yards allowed a walkable and bikeable area. The paths were lined with native plants that didn't require much attention.

In Arizona and New Mexico where it is even drier people have dirt or gravel yards. I've also seen artificial turf.

Keep in mind that the weather of these last few years don't mirror the rainfall that was received when these cities and towns were growing. It's a bit like wondering why the DC suburbs didn't just put in more metro connections in 1910.

That’s great about people’s yards but http://www.golfarizona.com/courses/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only 10% of California's water use is urban (aka residential). Almond orchards also use 10% of California's water and half of those almonds are grown for export. See anything wrong with this picture?

No. What’s wrong with exporting almonds? Don’t we want an economy where we make and export some things?

DP.. but it's at the expense of water for people who live in the state.

There are rice paddies in CA. It's ridiculous. They have to flood the area to grow the rice. WTF. Some of the farmers there are selfish. The US can grow rice in lowlands that naturally have welands like in the state of LA.

[Anonymous]

It’s really bad. I was just at Lake Powell in AZ. The hydroelectric plants there provide electricity for the Navajo Nation. They will be the most effected if power cannot be generated. What’s worse is that the Navajo Nation lost one of it’s biggest sources of energy and employment: coal mines. Shutting down the coal mines the Navajo Nation used has been devastating for them economically and took away a sense of pride and autonomy. And now they might lose electricity as well.

This will effect all Americans because crops and animals will have no irrigation.

It’s bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is plenty of water for people it’s just ag takes it all to grow water intensive crops and there is no incentive for upstream users to conserve really.

That’s not how water rights work in those areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only 10% of California's water use is urban (aka residential). Almond orchards also use 10% of California's water and half of those almonds are grown for export. See anything wrong with this picture?

No. What’s wrong with exporting almonds? Don’t we want an economy where we make and export some things?

DP.. but it's at the expense of water for people who live in the state.

There are rice paddies in CA. It's ridiculous. They have to flood the area to grow the rice. WTF. Some of the farmers there are selfish. The US can grow rice in lowlands that naturally have welands like in the state of LA.

Rice grown in CA is clean and healthy. Rice grown in TX and LA is toxic, has high levels of As, Pb, and Cd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is plenty of water for people it’s just ag takes it all to grow water intensive crops and there is no incentive for upstream users to conserve really.

That’s not how water rights work in those areas.

Really? Why don’t you explain for us how prior appropriation encourages sensible conservation and allocation of water?

[Anonymous]

New Mexico is not the problem. Colorado, Nevada and Arizona are. Drive through New Mexico and you’ll rarely see a grass yard, more gravel and xeriscaped. Very few swimming pools and golf courses as well. They’re the one state that’s got a culture of water conservation, but their neighbors are ruining it for them.

[Anonymous]

This has been for years. There were early warning signs.
Just like in the DC area. Have you seen the Potomac lately when you cross one of the bridges. It has been running low for years. The downpour of rain doesn't help. It only causes serious runoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People will have to move away. But it's going to be painful for a while until they realize that's the solution.

No. It will all be fine. This has happened before and the raion comes back and thing get back to normal. This is not the new normal.