Farmers Can’t Keep Hogging the Water in Parched Southwest
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Maybe we shouldn't be expanding cities and developing new suburbs in such arid regions that don't have enough water?
> More recently, private investors have been buying up agricultural water rights around the state in the hope of reselling them to homebuilders.
So even under the current system, urban/suburban expansion _can_ proceed, but it's disincentivized due to the additional cost of securing water rights? That seems like a good deterrent to building in a marginal location, not a problem.
Not saying change isn’t needed, I just understand why the people who will be ruined by it are fighting it. “Clean coal” is another example.
Arizona, to my knowledge, doesn't have any systems like that in place. Not for nothing that all those stories you hear about new developments trying to skirt water usage regulations and then being shocked when residents suddenly run out of water for their swimming pools seem to come out of Arizona.
Oh yeah, and the Colorado River Compact was based on estimates of river flows that were optimistic even for wetter years in 100 years ago. The compact allocated over 16 million acre-feet for a river that most years manages less than 14 million.
Non-shaded non-lined/piped open earth irrigation is a big waste.
Someone using land in the 1920s doesn't mean that they should get to keep having wildly inefficient irrigation practices in the 2020s.
Looks like switching to desert-optimized crops that have historically been grown in the region is the only real long-term solution, plus a lot more drip-style irrigation:
https://extension.unr.edu/publication.aspx?PubID=2205
> "Heat-loving plants are best suited for summer production in desert climates. The plant families that fit into the heat-loving category are nightshade or Solanaceae (tomatoes, peppers, eggplant) and squash or Cucurbitaceae (cucumbers, melons, summer and winter squash). Corn and beans also perform best in hot climates."
One crop per year might also have to be the new norm if the Colorado River dams keep heading for dead pool.
This feels like one of the most Lawful Evil, Imminate'ing the Escharon'ing ruinating region-murdering life-destroying things the USG has done, and which it continues to perpetuate.
The idea that law must be upheld blindly at any cost, for law itself sake, for "stability" sake is so fallen. The furtherance of these grotesque rights is the use of law to end life, to ruin the country. The law was the mistake, is the instability, and it should not be honored, it's idea should not besmirch just & right laws.
These should be rolled back in huge degree, with not a penny paid. But I have no idea how we do it.
Instead we just wait for the rivers to go dry, wait for the end.
Agriculture is big business's boogeyman.
Golf course, swimming pools, lawns and poorly managed landscaping use water like its a cheap date.
Farmers in suburbs have been GIVING UP their water rights for the greater good.
Land investors have been buying farmland to usurp the water rights.
Bloomberg is a mouthpiece for governance in Arizona that wants to keep building water guzzling semiconductor fabs.
A quick google seems to give various sources that say:
* Farming uses about 80% of all water in california.
* Almonds use 17% of that (so 13% of all water use).
Are almonds important enough to use 13% of all water use in an area suffering increasing cripling drought? I'm happy to have a discussion about it, but calling it a small portion seems to greatly underplay almonds.
Ye gads, that's an amazing stat. I heard heard almonds were using a lot water, but never the scale. For a strictly luxury crop, that is an unbelievable amount of resources in a state with 11 desalination plants.
Almonds are luxury?
Even if we take your googled numbers as fact, it's a relatively small minority of the total farming production in the region.
What isn’t careful, in my opinion, is to take some poorly thought out “water rights” rules and keep applying them, while it is clear they are not fit for purpose and various water levels, both above and below ground, continue to reach new lows every year.
Farming is needed and I'm all for farming, but that's for fruits and vegetables which like almonds I doubt they take up that much water. If I had to guess it would probably be some type of animal feed that is wasting all that water.
I remember reading a story somewhere where the saudi's were buying up land that had these old water rules to grow animal feed to bring back home. When other countries start using you this way to me is a sign of a BIG problem in your policies.
Alfalfa is the culprit you're looking for. Thirsty crop, grown in the desert, and almost exclusively for nonhuman consumption.
To resolve the issue, they are lobbying[0] to have the groundwater laws adjusted to allow companies to treat and return their own water back to groundwater aquifers without any oversight.
e.g. they may be allocated to pump 3,000 acre-feet of water/year, but if they pump 1,000 acre-feet of 'treated' wastewater back into the ground /somewhere/ then they are allowed to pump an additional 1,000 /plus/ 1,000 more the next year. And of course those are all virtual credits, they can acquire clean water wherever they like and dispose of 'treated' water into the ground wherever for credits, with little to no oversight.
[0] https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/water-wars/nestle-...