[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

They'll really look smart when they stop watering golf courses, lawns and swimming pools and send the water to the farmers instead.

Right, because deserts are perfectly logical places for things like rice paddies and fruit tree orchards.
For example, a single, semi-dwarf fruit tree requires 16 GALLONS of water per day. Multiply that by thousands of fruit trees and the logic of having fruit tree orchards in desert areas becomes highly questionable.

[andyt]

The Central Valley isn't a desert. It's incredibly productive, just needs water. If I have to choose (and it seems to be coming down to that) I'll eat the rice and fruit instead of playing golf on an empty stomach. Admittedly I wouldn't be playing golf even on a full stomach. Maybe on acid, just to watch that ball go zingggggggggggggggg.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

They'll really look smart when they stop watering golf courses, lawns and swimming pools and send the water to the farmers instead.

In most of the SW, the biggest user is agriculture and/or industry, not cities. And lots of cities, like Las Vegas, have very strict bylaws on having lawns (and watering them too), owning swimming pools and so on.

http://www.obwb.ca/uploads/media/121207 ... ourier.pdf

Vegas has also paid homeowners to remove lawns and reuses 93% of its water - far more than most American cities do.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lake-mead-i ... er-supply/

In the long run, the solution needs to come from farmers and industry who use up most of the water, although it certainly wouldn't hurt to get people used to conservation either.

[andyt]

I saw plenty of golf courses in the Phoenix area. In LA, pools seem to be de rigueur.

Of course agriculture and industry should do their best to conserve. But if a tradeoff is necessary, and it seems to be, I would rank agriculture at the top of who should get water, industry second. Well, that is after drinking water has been allocated - for drinking.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Hopwfully that El Nino they're predicting will come through and get some precipitation to the area. That will bring temperorary relief but replenishmnet of groundwater will take a few years.

One of the fastest ways to rebuild the wetlands is to give the job to the overly large rodent designed to do just that.

http://www.cbc.ca/beaverwhisperer/

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Wonder how long it will be before Americans want us to pipe water down to them?

I've warned you folks several times to beware of Los Angeles and their thirst for everyone else's water. That said, they already have plans in the making to steal water from the Yukon in Alaska and the Fraser in BC:

http://texts.cdlib.org/view?docId=ft0v1 ... ntire_text

Water for Los Angeles

(Excerpt)

$1:

I've always felt that at some point in time there will be, because water is such a vital necessity, there will be a major basin transfer system from the Yukon [River] exchanging water for the Fraser River.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I've warned you folks several times to beware of Los Angeles and their thirst for everyone else's water. That said, they already have plans in the making to steal water from the Yukon in Alaska and the Fraser in BC:

http://texts.cdlib.org/view?docId=ft0v1 ... ntire_text

Water for Los Angeles

(Excerpt)

$1:

I've always felt that at some point in time there will be, because water is such a vital necessity, there will be a major basin transfer system from the Yukon [River] exchanging water for the Fraser River.

$1:

Nelson

You could never sell that plan because it would have to be guaranteed funding by the federal government. It was just too big a plan for any--even a large group of water utilities couldn't handle it. And in order to get federal funding, you'd have to get Congress to approve it. That's why I suggested that Great Lakes plan of basin transfer from Canada, which would have to be approved at the presidential level. There are so many senators whose states border on the Great Lakes, thus you have a substantial number of senators that could see benefits to their own state. You have to look at it from the political angle, as well as a practical or engineering angle. Whether it can be sold or not. Whereas anything in the West, you would only have maybe two or three states that would be involved and that would benefit from such a proposal. I think the plan to save the Great Lakes would catch on, and could possibly be done gradually. That would take a lot of studying and a lot of work, but I think, as I said before, that if we're going to continue (the United States) to grow as we have, growth will only be limited by the amount of water that is available to support that growth. And that is coming, in the next decade or so, to a critical point.

Now, if the aqueduct is not enlarged and sufficient water provided to fulfill the contract the state has with its member agencies, Southern California is going to be faced with a serious water shortage when we cyclically go into a period of eight to ten years of insufficient rainfall and snowfall. True, the water that is being provided by Metropolitan Water District is a supplemental supply. I think the amount of water that is needed by the Metropolitan Water District member agencies--I think about half of it is being provided by Metropolitan Water District. The other half is provided by the Owens River Aqueduct, or local wells, or local supplies. But that percentage is going to rapidly change with the growth that is taking place in this coast area. So people are going to have to be made aware of the options that they have, and it's not going to be done by conservation and rationing.

We've been listening. Although he might think it, the POTUS does not make law in Canada, and the law currently states that Bulk export of water from Crown land is illegal. Congress can approve and the President can sign the bill, but that doesn't change Canadian law.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

I saw plenty of golf courses in the Phoenix area. In LA, pools seem to be de rigueur.

Of course agriculture and industry should do their best to conserve. But if a tradeoff is necessary, and it seems to be, I would rank agriculture at the top of who should get water, industry second. Well, that is after drinking water has been allocated - for drinking.

There certainly are those who are wasting it, but there are also those who see the crisis coming down the road and are doing something about it...as I said, it's not ALL bad news.

[peck420]

Lol...should we really be criticizing the US about their water usage?

It's not like we're any better. We simply have the good fortune of equal (or larger) water tables, with a substantially smaller population.

Canadian average: 343 litres/day
US average: 382 litres/day
https://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=F25C70EC-1

While looking at those numbers, keep in mind that the US has more persons living in arid and desert environments than Canada has people.

We need to get much better.

Edited to add source.

[BartSimpson]

peck420 peck420:

Lol...should we really be criticizing the US about their water usage?

It's not like we're any better. We simply have the good fortune of equal (or larger) water tables, with a substantially smaller population.

Canadian average: 343 litres/day
US average: 382 litres/day
https://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=F25C70EC-1

While looking at those numbers, keep in mind that the US has more persons living in arid and desert environments than Canada has people.

We need to get much better.

Edited to add source.

You also need to remember that our per capita usage is higher than yours because we grow a broader variety of crops than you folks do. We also grow a lot of crops in arid areas with the use of irrigation.

[peck420]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You also need to remember that our per capita usage is higher than yours because we grow a broader variety of crops than you folks do. We also grow a lot of crops in arid areas with the use of irrigation.

Very true, and that makes Canada's numbers all the sadder.

I think the US uses around 200+ times the amount for irrigation that Canada does, so that means that non-agro and private use must be substantially higher for the average Canuck.

[DrCaleb]

peck420 peck420:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You also need to remember that our per capita usage is higher than yours because we grow a broader variety of crops than you folks do. We also grow a lot of crops in arid areas with the use of irrigation.

Very true, and that makes Canada's numbers all the sadder.

I think the US uses around 200+ times the amount for irrigation that Canada does, so that means that non-agro and private use must be substantially higher for the average Canuck.

I just can't see those numbers, if they don't include water used in food production. I keep a pretty good leash on my water usage, and it's about 1.5 cubic metres (1500l) per month, including washing clothes and dishes.

~300l per day? ~9000 per month? That's insane! I can't use 1/4 of what the average person does!

[peck420]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I just can't see those numbers, if they don't include water used in food production. I keep a pretty good leash on my water usage, and it's about 1.5 cubic metres (1500l) per month, including washing clothes and dishes.

~300l per day? ~9000 per month? That's insane! I can't use 1/4 of what the average person does!

Unfortunately, for every person like you, there is a dozen that just don't give a shit.

Canada has routinely topped the charts as one of the most wasteful water users.

[Public_Domain]

We should be working on converting ocean salt water into fresh water on a massive scale. I simply see no other solution.

[Jabberwalker]

... no other solution save a saline one?