California's Water Crisis

[FriendlyFire]

Just for the record, the farmers that planted the nut trees, grapes, and almonds (not quite sure how they are distinct from nut trees, actually), and let's throw in citrus trees and avocado trees as well, aren't going to learn anything because they mostly died decades ago, if not centuries. California being full of water intensive agriculture is nothing new. That's why the 'blame it on agriculture' plan is so wrong headed, and also why any sort of 'take it out of farming' solution is also wrong headed.

Those are water intensive trees will die within 1 year if they are not given sufficient water wiping them out for good. These tree will probably be kept alive for a few years if they are sustained on a small amount of water but then if the drought continues they wont survive.

There is also massive water saving measures that can be taken by the suburban, and residential use as CA are using 5 times the water as Australia.

Ca needs a long term solution though, as the world heats up and changes. Eventually water usage problem will be resolved one way or another.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I doubt that anyone is going to go with 'let's wipe out the hundred year old orchards' as a viable solution, and I am certain that no one would call it 'for good'. There may be a point where it is a necessity, but it will never be good. At any rate, the farmers get first cut on the water, so as far as those trees are concerned there currently is no shortage.

By the way, making comparisons between California and Australia isn't really a practical line of analysis in my opinion, but where do you get that 'five times the water use' figure?

 

[FriendlyFire]

CA average daily water usage is currently 147 gallons = 556 liters
Sydney average water usage during drought was 30 gallons = 113 liters

I dont know what viable solutions for CA farms there are if increasing droughts and longer droughts are being forecast. Maybe it might be economically viable to move them ? For the short term you can keep them alive hopefully until this drought passes would be viable. But in the future and if the drought continues ?

Many people (Republicans) think that they shouldnt release so much water, however scientist point out this could lead to ecological collapse and devastate the fishing industry. Japan should be a case study, at least the Japanese had political will to bann fishing for 5 years completely and work at reversing the farming to save there fishing industry. At great cost Japan managed to save there ecosystem and now have smaller sustainable fishing which is a fraction of it once was.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

CA average daily water usage is currently 147 gallons = 556 liters
Sydney average water usage during drought was 30 gallons = 113 liters

I want to use this elsewhere, but it is a place that I can't just say "my friend at CFC says..."

Help me out?

I dont know what viable solutions for CA farms there are if increasing droughts and longer droughts are being forecast. Maybe it might be economically viable to move them ? For the short term you can keep them alive hopefully until this drought passes would be viable. But in the future and if the drought continues ?

It seems like I'm not getting the key point of the situation across. There is no problem keeping them alive, because as far as the trees are concerned there is no drought. They don't get their water from rain, farmers spray it to them and the farmers get first cut of the available water. The farmers don't run low on water unless total supply falls below agricultural demand, and that is not even in the distant horizons category. Of course, all the thirsty people would have rioted and killed the farmers before then, but that's also pretty far off in the distance.

The issue isn't even really whether the current drought continues, the problem is that demand continues to escalate so that even if the drought ends there will not be sufficient supply. Cutting back the agricultural water at a rate that matches growth can stabilize total demand, temporarily. But as soon as the continuous cutting back in agricultural use can't be maintained (and if nothing else agricultural use eventually reaches zero so there is certainly a limit) we are right back at steadily growing demand and (at best) a stable supply.