That's to say, farms basically convert water to food and CO2 to O2. I'd say this is the water well spent.
If it cools the plants and the ground through evaporation, it's used as effectively as a datacenter.
The lack of drip irrigation used in more arid areas, jsut because they have water today, is kind of shocking, and stupid.
[0] https://www.mygeoquest.com/ogallala-aquifer-depletion-map-an...
[1] Unless cooling is somehow critical, or there is a fungus growth problem from watering at less-hot times of day.
I stand by what I say, 90% are brain dead, have 0 understanding of sustainable practices, only care about their bottom line, use absolutely outdated ways of managing and growing crops. They're basically brute forcing life with technology, destroying their own source of income year after year.
I worked for years in small scale bio farms, I can certify most farmers are clinically retarded
They varies wildly between different crops. Ideally, farmers in drought prone regions should be choosing crops that don't just dump all the water into the atmosphere (but current economic incentives/excessively cheap industrial water mean this is not happening).
Also, a lot of water evaporates from the soil before it ever gets sucked up by the plants.
If it's fed to farm animals for meat, that reduces its efficiency by an order of magnitude. There's still plenty of discussion to be had if that is water well spent. It probably depends on a lot of factors.
And then find out how much Oracle uses per site as I figure their provably running much less efficient operations.
Im with you being some numbers to the battle. Its either going to be obviously bad or non-issue. Next question is, what is the quality of the recycled water.
Final comment - you used Nebraska as a location - what about all the drought states?
Opinions don't necessarily equate with a desire to remove them, there could also be (dis)-incentives like taxes, removal of subsidies etc.
We are omnivores, sure, but naturally what that means is that humans have adaptability to subsist on a meatless diet in the event of very poor conditions. Just as we have the ability to sweat to cool ourselves if we find ourselves in the desert. That doesn't mean we should all move to the Mojave and voluntarily live that way.
"better for our health ... in multiple ways"
On that I'll grant you a +1, Partially True. Some vegan diets are surely better for health than some omnivorous diets. Some are worse, though.
In the end, I have no objection to those who want to voluntarily ignore their ability to get nutrition from animal-based sources. But it's a losing battle to try to force others to adopt your worldview on this to the extent of embracing veganism. Given that most of these animals -- even whole species at this point -- wouldn't exist if we didn't raise them for meat, I'd rather see the energy wasted at evangelizing veganism were aimed at minimizing meat animal suffering, something which is achievable. After all, a cow who lives a nice life on a farm and is eventually humanely killed and eaten is much better off than a deer who lives in the forest and is eventually grabbed by a puma and torn to shreds.