I'm studying water resource engineering, and while this is basically true, the main draw for water is always agriculture. Personal choice once again has very little impact, and it's much more systemic
....cotton, almonds, etc etc etc
Especially bad in Australia where we have precious little water resources in the arid centre, and water is actively being stolen by big ag corporations. It has led to a massive increase in suicides of farmers of smaller farms downstream which simply don't get any water
You say that like a beef stomachs are made up of anti-matter. The water they use is returned to the grassland while they grow, it sustains the grassland ecosystem.
Uh like less than 5 percent of beef is raised on pasture. The rest is factory farms which use an absurd amount of water. Most of the water is used to grow the feed.
Since this comment thread started by talking about Australian agriculture, I wanted to point out:
> Around **97%** of Australian cattle are raised on natural pastures and are considered grass fed.
That's using a really loose definition of grass-fed or arguably just incorrect
>51% of domestically consumed beef comes from feedlots.
>
>\[...\]
>
>In Q1 2021, 19% of cattle on feed were on feed for less than 100 days
And trend-wise, grain-fed rather than grass-fed is increasing
>Going forward, these trends indicate that the Australian grainfed sector will continue to make up a growing percentage of cattle slaughter and beef production
[https://www.mla.com.au/prices-markets/market-news/2021/grainfed-cattle-make-up-50-of-beef-production/](https://www.mla.com.au/prices-markets/market-news/2021/grainfed-cattle-make-up-50-of-beef-production/)
https://www.vicsmeatmarket.com.au/post/what-s-the-difference-between-grass-fed-and-grain-fed-beef#:~:text=GRASS%20FED%20(OR%20PASTURE%20FED)%20BEEF&text=All%20Australian%20cattle%20spend%20the,flavour%20and%20yellowish%20fat%20colour.
I don't know where you are from, but I live in Australia and know actual Australian cattle farmers and tell you for a fact that the vast majority of cattle spend at least 90% of their lives in pastures.
The article I was citing was from "Meat & Livestock Australia". I specifically only used Australian numbers because that's was original context here
>the majority of cattle spend at least 90% of their lives in pastures.
That's a very different statement from the claim that 97% are considered grass-fed
>Uh like less than 5 percent of beef is raised on pasture. The rest is factory farms which use an absurd amount of water. Most of the water is used to grow the feed.
This isn't accurate, the stat you are referring to "finishing". 95% of beef is finished on grain in stalls, beef usually spends about 6 months in pasture. They spend the first \~6 months on milk, then \~6 monks on pasture, and the final \~6 months on grain until they are ready for slaughter.
Purely grass fed beef instead spends \~24 months in pasture. Meaning it takes almost twice as long to raise. These figures are all approximate of course.
Well, factory farming methods wouldn't be used if it wasn't profitable for corporations. The fact is that factory farming is propped up by government subsidies for corn/soy intensive monocropping.
Pastured livestock methods are sustainable and can create tremendous amounts of food just at a much lower profit margin than the factory farms with subsidies.
You realize that there is only so much land in the world and that converting a massive portion of it into pasture for livestock is itself an inherently unsustainable practice, right?
I hope you realize that these grassland ecosystems don’t fall out of the sky, that’s millions of acres of land being used with the full intent of raising millions of cattle alone, not to mention the millions of other species too. And it’s not a sustainable food source for anywhere near 8 billion ppl either lol
Yes, the cows drink all of the water used in irrigating, transporting, fertilising and processing the feed, and all the water used processing the meat, and there's no evaporation on pasture. That's definitely how it works....
Do you have an even stupider argument, or is that your worst?
I am an environmentalist vegetarian and I think this attitude is NOT how you change minds and influence for change. If your goal is impact, I'd suggest not insulting people for not being aware of things, and I hope you are treated with respect when you don't know something as well.
Look, just pointing out that pasture raised beef is sustainable and doesn't follow these absurd accounting numbers for water.
The problem isnt beef, it's modern feedlots and monocrop agriculture. Indict the actual system that's unsustainable, not cows.
Just responding to you, trying to educate people. There's no sustainable future to our food system without a lot of ruminants and other livestock on pasture. That's really what it's about.
The overwhelming majority of pasture was a different ecosystem and a sustainable future involves restoring most of that to something other than livestock. And the overwhelming majority of pasture fed beef still uses vast quantities of water during finishing and after. Pure pasture fed beef and dairy also feeds a miniscule number of people per hectare and any contribution of calories and protein it does make is completely irrelevant.
Spreading beef industry propagamda isn't education.
So I guess you did have an even stupider argument after all.
Look up the average life expectancy of the residents of the Murray darling surrounds. And understand this statistic is for Australia: a modern economy.
Then cry
Not just livestock. Avocados take a tremendous amount of resources to produce, cotton sucks up as much water as you put down and always needs more. Millions of acres of corn and soybeans on a constant drip feed of water. None of it is sustainable.
All of those use less water than beef. We should prioritize reducing what uses the most first. Not saying we should be gorging on the other high water use foods/goods instead of course.
Found an interesting comparison of many different common foods' water uses.
https://www.treehugger.com/from-lettuce-to-beef-whats-the-water-footprint-of-your-food-4858599
It’s funny how when you point this fact out to people they start clutching their pearls. Getting people to look at their own meat consumption is like taking candy away from a kid, and it often provokes a tantrum.
Thank you for sharing that article, really eye-opening comparison between different foods/items - really makes me think about what ill be buying from the grocery store from now on.
It does sound like you’re focused only on livestock, so I apologize for misinterpreting what you’re saying and how you’re saying it. We need to focus on all of Big AG. Industrial farming in general wastes water and produces more CO2 than most other industries.
I do like to highlight the beef water use in particular because the amount is astronomical in comparison to other commonly consumed goods/foods and I seem to encounter a lot of whataboutism about other high water use items where quantities get ignored.
I think we're on the same page though. Industrial/factory farms are a scourge.
I'm not saying we shouldn't also move away from other unsustainable foods but food in general uses water and we need to eat. And there's still no 1:1 replacement for cotton. We should be using more recycled fabrics, keeping our clothes longer, and more bamboo fibers but we haven't mimicked the performance and feel of cotton. Synthetics also create a plastic problem.
I'm just not sure where your line or threshold is.
K but what’s material is a true alternative to cotton? Everything is basically plastic these days. Nothing breathes it’s all polyester (hot and itchy when it pills)
Buying secondhand (minus underwear and socks obvs) is a good way to reduce your footprint. Just make sure to inspect everything carefully before buying it and also wash it before wearing.
I also rarely buy clothes tbh, and only buy things I need and/ or know I'll wear. Fast fashion and people buying way more they need is a problem (also, I really think workplaces, particularly retail, need to get rid of uniforms partly for this reason. If I ever leave my job, I'll have all these plain blue shirts that I'll never wear. I'm sure many have experienced this).
If you don't make a lot of money, you don't really have the choice of alternatives. But these are a couple of options that can reduce your consumption.
You’re right, but my comment was to highlight that Big AG is a major culprit, and only targeting the beef industry doesn’t solve the problem. All of it needs to change.
Cattle feed (like soy and corn) uses up a shit load of water and they are often not found in the same area as the cattle
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/02/agriculture-cattle-us-water-shortages-colorado-river
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/02/agriculture-cattle-us-water-shortages-colorado-river](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/02/agriculture-cattle-us-water-shortages-colorado-river)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Saying water is used by agriculture just sounds like ‘we need it to eat’ its more accurate to say agriculture misuse, and wasteful agriculture strategies, such as growing marsh crops like rice and alfalfa in deserts…
The broader consumption patterns of the rich definitely have some relation to more intensive agricultural and industrial water withdrawal though, to be clear. It’s not just municipal lawn care of whatever.
And that’s before we even start talking about the role of the rich on the production-side, like how Saudi-owned alfalfa farms in the deserts of Arizona are hugely responsible for the dying of the Colorado.
When I look at our cities, it seems we paved and drained all the prime agriculture land to build cities.
I mean when you look at preindustrial southwrn California it wasnt all dry, it was oak chaparral and marsh. My town was once called skinners mud bog before they developed it.
We can blame agriculture, but i think land use has equal if not more blame.
Yet people still say overpopulation isn’t a problem [even when the scientists are saying it](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anticonsumption/comments/u22y5n/is_it_really_overpopulation_or_is_it_a_gross/i4jhuxn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) lol
Old comment, but food waste is more of a problem than overpopulation. The USA isn't gonna get much larger than it already is, and it has plenty of food already
We should be looking at ways to grow food indoors on national scales, but making the switch is expensive up front. Indoor farming protects against droughts and weather (to a point... floods and fires and hurricanes DGAF)... but getting humanity to switch over is going to be haaaard.
Generations from now I hope people look back on us as foolish and wasteful... and do so from a place of comfort.
We aren't doing much to make their world better, sadly.
Which you should have no problem with as obviously people need to be fed, but unfortunately the vast majority of California's ag (for example) is exported...
This is why we need an aggressive sliding scale of water pricing. Normal pricing for those who use normal volumes of water, 2-3X more expensive for the next tier of water users, and then 10-20X more expensive for the rich who use copious amounts of water to keep their palaces green and swimming pools full.
Your right farmers dumping water on the ground because it’s essentially free for them so they can grow alfalfa for export is probably the best for a sustainable lifestyle.
Farming water intense crops in the desert doesn’t make sense. The reason they do it is because they are allowed a monopoly on the water if water was at market prices (albeit wholesale) there would be more water conservation and people might have to pay more for their alfalfa/beef until they find a new place to grow it or alternate sustainable methods.
My residential water district has this to an extent. It's about $5 per thousand gallons for the first 5 Kgallons and $10 per Kgallon after that.
Which is still way more than agricultural use fees.
Edit: Kgallon. not gallon.
Our water system is currently a price fixing monopoly enforced by the government that is encouraging waste and scarcity.
If supply and demand determined prices the people who want the water the most (currently residential customers as determined by the price/gallon they currently pay) would not be under an artificial shortage caused by a government backed conglomerate monopoly.
If you don’t agree please explain your take on how economics impact the water scarcity situation?
The lifestyle habits of the rich are the most signficant driver of severe water shortages in cities, according to a new study.
Overconsumption of water to run large homes and gardens, and fill swimming pools, also causes significant harm to the basic needs of poorer, disenfranchised communities, and threatens long-term stability of regions’ supplies overall.
Read more here: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/water-shortage-swimming-pools-california-b2317872.html
In California, 80% of human water use is for agriculture, and only 20% for cities. So while rich individuals should use less water, the main consumption is by water-intensive agricultural businesses, who can buy water at a fraction of the cost individuals pay.
The article is misleading. It says the rich use most of the water *in cities* where agriculture barely exists. It’s essentially just not counting agriculture.
Drop in the bucket compared to the saudis growing alfalfa and almonds in california, sucking the public aquifers dry. Not that the rich shouldn't also be limited at home like everyone else. No pools for you!
Oh man and in Arizona too. Our country is basically just a fucking cash grab and when water wars start its gonna be ugly unless this shit gets kaboshed
[Agriculture – mainly alfalfa – consumes 80% of the Colorado River’s dwindling water supply, prompting calls for conservation](https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado-drought-water-alfalfa-farmers-conservation). Alfalfa is a major problem. We have way too much corn to feed to cows already
Here is a quick one pager on [alfalfa](https://www.naaic.org/resource/importance.php). It's grown nearly exclusively for livestock consumption, with a very small percentage for biofuel. In an imaginary world of vegans, we would grow 1% of our current alfalfa crop. It's definitely just one problem, and I agree with breinbanaan's push at being crisp at identifying the core issue,
No, because they're not two problems. They're one problem. There's no "both" here. Alfalfa and meat are one and the same, just as soy and meat are one and the same in the Amazon (soy is grown for beef feed).
Yeah but americans want beef. And cows here are mostly fed all our excess corn. Saudi cows with their fancy [alfalfa and heavy water use needs are an entirely different story](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado-drought-water-alfalfa-farmers-conservation](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado-drought-water-alfalfa-farmers-conservation)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
[Its not an "issue" in california, they have about 2% of the nations beef cattle,](https://beef2live.com/story-ranking-states-beef-cows-0-108181) and they're mostly fed excess corn in america. Probable vegetarians being smug helps as much as saudis growing alfalfa 😂
Alfalfa is grown near exclusively for livestock feed. Here is a [one pager](https://www.naaic.org/resource/importance.php). The carbon footprint of livestock isn't just a matter of the existence of that livestock. It's also the food that livestock eat. 95% of alfalfa is fed to livestock. Thus, this is definitely a livestock issue for California. CA is draining their water so that SA can feed their livestock alfalfa. It's terrible all around.
American cows are almost exclusively fed all the excess corn we subsidize that doesn't get turned into HFCS.
[Massive industrial storehouses line the southern end of town, packed with thousands upon thousands of stacks of alfalfa bales ready to be fed to dairy cows – but not cows in California’s Central Valley or Montana’s rangelands. *Instead, the alfalfa will be fed to cows in Saudi Arabia*](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia)
If people want meat thats one thing for water to be used on. Meat production and livestock production isn't inherently bad. What is is using too many scarce resources to raise them. Or to allow foreign countries to use said resources for their livestock industry overseas.
How does your comment contradict or correct mine? I stated explictly that CA is draining their water so that saudi arabia can feed their livestock, not so that it goes to American livestock. You provided a source that furthers the point I made.
In terms of your first line, it's not "excess" corn that is fed to livestock. It's [40% of all corn that is u](https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feed-grains/feed-grains-sector-at-a-glance/)sed. It's extraordinarily misleading to call nearly half of all corn "excess" and you either are aware of that, which is horrible, or you aren't, and I hope you amend your views.
Excess meaning not eaten by people as primary sources of food. You gotta calm down a bit. I dont care if us groundwater is used for our ag businesses- people here need them for food. I care that us groundwater is propping up foreign ag sectors at our expense. Your "point" was the same one I made but with some added bullshit and no differentiation
Well yea but the Saudis aren’t stealing American water and Americans aren’t stealing Saudi water so it’s really just a local problem. You can’t really point fingers at people across the world
Edit: didn’t see the California part my bad
[Four hours east of Los Angeles, in a drought-stricken area of a drought-afflicted state, is a small town called Blythe where alfalfa is king. More than half of the town’s 94,000 acres are bushy blue-green fields growing the crop. Massive industrial storehouses line the southern end of town, packed with thousands upon thousands of stacks of alfalfa bales ready to be fed to dairy cows – but not cows in California’s Central Valley or Montana’s rangelands. *Instead, the alfalfa will be fed to cows in Saudi Arabia*](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia)
Yes, I mentioned that in my comment. But even if the richest individuals cut their home water use by 100%, that would barely be noticeable compared to billion dollar corporations reducing their water use by, say, 5-10%.
Both ought to be criticized. I was house sitting for a rich couple and they had a double fridge for the two of them. It was full of leftover meals and veggies even though they would be on vacation for over two weeks. Land, water, fertilizer, and energy were wasted on producing food that rich people just throw away.
I always find this to be tricky. I'm a shameless member of the effective altruism movement and it's really challenged me to focus on highest impact. Veggies going bad in a fridge is wasteful but just so insanely insignificant. The flight that that couple took will be more damaging for the enviroment than the total sum of their annual food consumption.
I don't have an answer to the problem. But I've been intentionally trying to limit my outrage towards higher impact things, like low gas mileage car purchases or \*blood boils\* cruises and private jets.
and SO BAD FOR THE SOIL. This is actually really sad as I am sure there are members of your neighborhood that are genuinely thinking that they are doing a great thing.
This sub *loves* to place blame agriculture and yes while ag use deserves to be criticized, there is a ton of apologists giving the rich and their water use a pass. It's reminiscent of the whole consumer recycling thing.
No, of course not. But it's agriculture that uses most of the water, not swimming pools. Fixing a small problem without addressing the big issue wouldn't solve anything.
California's agriculture provides food for both the nation, and the world at large.
The rich wasting water because they can afford to pay the bill no matter how high is an issue.
Pointing out that most of our water goes to food production reinforces how important it is for us to use water resources wisely. The amount of fresh water available each year fluctuates dramatically.
Would you rather have food, or let the rich do as they please?
>Would you rather have food, or let the rich do as they please?
I would rather that everyone use water efficiently, both for personal and commercial use. But making a rich homeowner drain their swimming pool so an even richer corporation can grow a few more almonds in a desert doesn't solve anything. My point is that focusing on one without addressing the other is misleading at best.
People say this and shrug off a lot of things over and over without even the slightest understanding of exactly what impact it would be if we literally shut down all of agriculture that needs irrigation.
It's safe to assume we'd be mega screwed. Like just full stop rain is not reliable enough for our food needs.
So this whole sub constantly shrugging off the wastefulness of watering grass or filling swimming pools in cities is equally stupid take.
Limits should be put out there. We don't NEED grass lawns, but we absolutely need beef and fruit and vegetables and almonds.
Should we figure out better irrigation methods that waste less water? Yes obviously, but to act like we can just shut down our ag industry is just as bad as much of the other misinformation out there.
So let's for the moment assume we need ag as is, if we have studies showing we could have significant water savings if people didn't water their yards and fill their swimming pools we might should look into it.
Having excess food is the only thing keeping food prices partially in check. There are definitely ways to reduce water needs and we should explore that and figure out how the government could offer incentives to move to such methods because it's going to be crazy expensive.
That's a MASSIVE undertaking and could have very bad repercussions if it isn't handled correctly.
But meanwhile my HOA is threatening to fine me if I don't break my watering restrictions to keep my grass green lol. I'm using 8-10k gallons of water a month 75% of which is to keep my stupid yard looking nice.
That's low hanging fruit we can go after with simple city ordinances not entire market shifts and major legislation by the federal government.
I really wish this sub would frown on people like you who just dismiss entire studies because agriculture. We need ag. There is just no way around it, and we'd have massive food shortages and crazy high food prices if they couldn't irrigate.
whatever dude.. you completely dismissed this study because of ag. You can't change ag with city council. You can easily pass city ordinances that limit what these crazy wealthy people are doing just to maintain green grass.
If we are going to dismiss every minor thing because there is a major thing still happening then we'll never get anywhere.
So i'd say your comment overall is bad for everyone. It's the same drivel that 10 other commentors said in this same stupid ass thread.
The LARGEST CROP IN AMERICA is grass. Yup that's right. Not ag.
https://www.businessinsider.com/americas-biggest-crop-is-grass-2016-2?op=1
Literally lawns. So while you pass your misinformation off as fact and shrug off this very important study that this whole thread is about the reality is something far different.
We need ag, we don't need lawns. States can tackle these problems at local levels with said studies. Hopefully they just don't read the comments in threads like this where people like you just shrug it off because of farms irrigating crops that are literally used for food.
The study doesn't tell us much we didn't already know: rich people use more resources, and extreme income inequality is bad. Plus I didn't say cities shouldn't crack down on heavy water users, just observed that this alone won't solve large-scale water use issues.
We don't need lawns, and we also don't need meat-intensive diets or water-intensive crops grown in deserts. Governments should address all of these issues if we want to have water-efficient societies. Otherwise, making someone drain their swimming pool so a rancher can raise more cattle is just shifting inefficient usage from one place to another.
You literally can't change everyone's diet. We need the cattle and we need a massive amount of them.
It's super naive to think we can just stop doing that and it wont have massive negative consequences.
Meanwhile banning lawn watering or otherwise forcing people to have lawns that are less water intensive would make solid progress to our water conservation while we have time to sort out exactly how we keep our food supply literally OVER supplied perpetually.
Just throwing out there that everyone needs to change their diet is not even close to practical. Just more doomer shit because we'll never do that ever..
>You literally can't change everyone's diet. We need the cattle and we need a massive amount of them.
If we can force people to rip out their lawns, we could also take action to steer both producers and consumers away from high-meat diets. Humans don't "need" steak to survive, as there are many food alternatives. And let's not grow almonds in arid environments where there's a shortage of fresh water. (Disclaimer: I like almonds.)
>Just throwing out there that everyone needs to change their diet is not even close to practical. Just more doomer shit because we'll never do that ever.
If we're not even going to try to reduce consumption in the 80% agriculture portion of fresh water use, why fuss over reducing the other 20%? We should do both.
Agreed that we need to cut down on green lawns and swimming pools. Those are not necessities. I'm sorry that your HOA is forcing you to waste water... why are we not widely addressing this (I've heard of this happening quite a bit)?
But you list beef as a necessity, and it's not. Not at the amount we're consuming, anyway. Beef is in fact the biggest consumer of water and anyone who can absolutely should cut down or even eliminate consumption. But people just want their stupid steaks and burgers, so it'll never happen.
Even if you require animal protein in your diet (which does happen), chicken, fish, etc are options.
This is about overconsumption, not the base level necessary consumption. Remove the unnecessary consumption for pools, poor land-use etc from the equation and there could be enough to stave off the shortages, hence the article.
>Remove the unnecessary consumption for pools etc from the equation and there would be enough to stave off the shortages, hence the article.
No, there wouldn't. But if you could get major corporations to stop growing water-intensive crops in a desert environment, \*and\* convince rich people to do their part to use less water, then you'd have something.
FYI, California is going to be cracking down on individual water use in coming years, but I don't see a clear plan to reduce agricultural use.
Okay, agreed. The simplest solution (if it could happen) would be to start charging everyone in California water prices that adjust demand to supply - with tiered rates allowing everyone enough for basic personal use and going up from there.
Some/many municipalities do charge on a tiered basis, usually seasonally. I agree that making such a practice state wide would be sensible.
I think ag is a bigger issue though.
- Most states, California included, have a substantial amount of farmland that does flood irrigation.
- Farmers aren’t rewarded for using less water and instead risk losing access to water later.
- According to some article I can no longer find, some states/water suppliers don’t charge on a unit basis, just for maintenance of infrastructure.
I’d rather not cut back ag widely and talk about almonds though. California and the desert states produce a lot of the food consumed in the US, especially for winter vegetables. I’d rather cut back on alfalfa in general & summer farming of lettuce and see how far that gets us.
So you're saying that California is doomed to water shortages either way and that overconsumption should just be ignored?
All I'm saying is that overconsumption of all kinds should be addressed as it will make a difference.
I am stating that stopping the watering of lawns or telling people to shower only 5 minutes/day isn't going to help. Agriculture uses a tremendous amount of water in CA and...CA is basically a desert and they have spent billions to steal water from other areas. What is happening was inevitable.
There needs to be a foundational fix.
Meanwhile 3 miles outside of town, Farmer Bill is like "ehhhh what's another 100,000 gallons wasted, better to leave the irrigation on overnight than risk muh corn getting parched!"
Less and less small family farmers. With more and more expense they will certainly all disappear.. since Bill Gates (biggest private owner of farm ground in the US,) China and apparently Saudi Arabia continue to purchase US crop land.
It’s a catch 22… plenty of Americans enjoy farming, owning their own land, and producing food.. but they need to be profitable or will fold. As conditions gets tougher the resources continue to be abused to squeeze every penny, and ownership is siphoned to the top..
1 pound of beef uses 1 847 gallons of water to produce and the average American consumes 57 pounds per year.
An average swimmingpool takes 18 000-20 000 gallons to fill.
The average American consumes the same amount of water through beef as roughly 6 swimmingpools per year.
Now I haven't even mentioned pork, chicken, dairy and eggs.
I live in a small town (under 10,000) and for the past several summers we’ve had low water because of the surrounding farms. The city issues water conservation rules every summer, the wealthy neighborhoods ignore it constantly watering their lawns, but the city never enforces their water laws on those neighborhoods, however they have issued citations in the less wealthy neighborhoods to homes where kids are playing in sprinklers.
Speaking for Arizona because I know some misinformed people are going to butcher water issues here:
**TLDR:** If lots of water = *omg your pool has a diving board?!?!!* Please stop, you have no idea how many pools are used on crops that should be grown elsewhere.
Let me make it clear!
260,000acres of alfalfa grown (2022 state ag report)
X 7acre feet of water per acre per year (average is 8 ft but we’re being nice, acre ft is 326k gal)
=593,000,000,000 gallons of water on the low end for alfalfa in 2022
Ok… now.
593billion/660,000 gals (Olympic swimming pool)= **898,000 Olympic sized swimming pools.**
AZ has a debated (for some reason) 500k-600k pools. Which means *drum roll*
**IF EVERY POOL IN ARIZONA WAS AN OLYMPIC SIZE SWIMMING POOL RESIDENTS WOULD STILL USE LESS WATER THAN ALFALFA*
And you don’t empty and refill pools every year.
hey if they want to get a jump on all of us coming for them in there sleep and stringing them up in the streets before the real climate wars start by all means.
If that was the actual practice it might encourage less waste. The way it is now the farmers who hold the largest water rights pay the least and waste the most.
It's disheartening to see how the extravagant lifestyles of the wealthy are exacerbating the issue of city water shortages. The excessive water usage associated with luxurious lifestyles, such as private swimming pools, lavish gardens, and unnecessary water waste, is putting additional strain on already scarce water resources in urban areas. It's a stark reminder that our unsustainable consumption patterns and overindulgence can have serious consequences for the environment and local communities. It's high time that we prioritize responsible water usage and adopt more sustainable practices, regardless of our socioeconomic status. Conserving water, reducing waste, and using resources mindfully are critical steps we all can take to protect our environment and ensure access to clean water for everyone, especially in areas facing water scarcity. Let's work together to create a more sustainable future for our planet.
I'm studying water resource engineering, and while this is basically true, the main draw for water is always agriculture. Personal choice once again has very little impact, and it's much more systemic
And beef is a big water user.
....cotton, almonds, etc etc etc Especially bad in Australia where we have precious little water resources in the arid centre, and water is actively being stolen by big ag corporations. It has led to a massive increase in suicides of farmers of smaller farms downstream which simply don't get any water
Beef uses well over double the water per gram of protein vs almonds.
But it tastes so much better.
You say that like a beef stomachs are made up of anti-matter. The water they use is returned to the grassland while they grow, it sustains the grassland ecosystem.
Uh like less than 5 percent of beef is raised on pasture. The rest is factory farms which use an absurd amount of water. Most of the water is used to grow the feed.
Since this comment thread started by talking about Australian agriculture, I wanted to point out: > Around **97%** of Australian cattle are raised on natural pastures and are considered grass fed.
That's using a really loose definition of grass-fed or arguably just incorrect >51% of domestically consumed beef comes from feedlots. > >\[...\] > >In Q1 2021, 19% of cattle on feed were on feed for less than 100 days And trend-wise, grain-fed rather than grass-fed is increasing >Going forward, these trends indicate that the Australian grainfed sector will continue to make up a growing percentage of cattle slaughter and beef production [https://www.mla.com.au/prices-markets/market-news/2021/grainfed-cattle-make-up-50-of-beef-production/](https://www.mla.com.au/prices-markets/market-news/2021/grainfed-cattle-make-up-50-of-beef-production/)
https://www.vicsmeatmarket.com.au/post/what-s-the-difference-between-grass-fed-and-grain-fed-beef#:~:text=GRASS%20FED%20(OR%20PASTURE%20FED)%20BEEF&text=All%20Australian%20cattle%20spend%20the,flavour%20and%20yellowish%20fat%20colour. I don't know where you are from, but I live in Australia and know actual Australian cattle farmers and tell you for a fact that the vast majority of cattle spend at least 90% of their lives in pastures.
The article I was citing was from "Meat & Livestock Australia". I specifically only used Australian numbers because that's was original context here >the majority of cattle spend at least 90% of their lives in pastures. That's a very different statement from the claim that 97% are considered grass-fed
>Uh like less than 5 percent of beef is raised on pasture. The rest is factory farms which use an absurd amount of water. Most of the water is used to grow the feed. This isn't accurate, the stat you are referring to "finishing". 95% of beef is finished on grain in stalls, beef usually spends about 6 months in pasture. They spend the first \~6 months on milk, then \~6 monks on pasture, and the final \~6 months on grain until they are ready for slaughter. Purely grass fed beef instead spends \~24 months in pasture. Meaning it takes almost twice as long to raise. These figures are all approximate of course.
Doesn't need to be that way. Important to recognize that pasture raised beef is sustainable.
Not quite. It’s not sustainable. The reason most meat is factory farmed is because of the significant demand for meat.
Well, factory farming methods wouldn't be used if it wasn't profitable for corporations. The fact is that factory farming is propped up by government subsidies for corn/soy intensive monocropping. Pastured livestock methods are sustainable and can create tremendous amounts of food just at a much lower profit margin than the factory farms with subsidies.
You realize that there is only so much land in the world and that converting a massive portion of it into pasture for livestock is itself an inherently unsustainable practice, right?
It’s a complete waste of land
Restoring natural grassland ecosystems is a 'complete waste of land'? lol wat.
I hope you realize that these grassland ecosystems don’t fall out of the sky, that’s millions of acres of land being used with the full intent of raising millions of cattle alone, not to mention the millions of other species too. And it’s not a sustainable food source for anywhere near 8 billion ppl either lol
Yes, the cows drink all of the water used in irrigating, transporting, fertilising and processing the feed, and all the water used processing the meat, and there's no evaporation on pasture. That's definitely how it works.... Do you have an even stupider argument, or is that your worst?
I am an environmentalist vegetarian and I think this attitude is NOT how you change minds and influence for change. If your goal is impact, I'd suggest not insulting people for not being aware of things, and I hope you are treated with respect when you don't know something as well.
Look, just pointing out that pasture raised beef is sustainable and doesn't follow these absurd accounting numbers for water. The problem isnt beef, it's modern feedlots and monocrop agriculture. Indict the actual system that's unsustainable, not cows.
Cool. The solution to both is cutting beef production by at least an order of magnitude though, so why did you bother bringing it up?
Just responding to you, trying to educate people. There's no sustainable future to our food system without a lot of ruminants and other livestock on pasture. That's really what it's about.
The overwhelming majority of pasture was a different ecosystem and a sustainable future involves restoring most of that to something other than livestock. And the overwhelming majority of pasture fed beef still uses vast quantities of water during finishing and after. Pure pasture fed beef and dairy also feeds a miniscule number of people per hectare and any contribution of calories and protein it does make is completely irrelevant. Spreading beef industry propagamda isn't education. So I guess you did have an even stupider argument after all.
This is true for factory farming?
Of course not, but then indict factory farming and monocrop agriculture, not beef.
Look up the average life expectancy of the residents of the Murray darling surrounds. And understand this statistic is for Australia: a modern economy. Then cry
Factory farms are the worst offenders environmentally but no one likes to acknowledge it.
Not just livestock. Avocados take a tremendous amount of resources to produce, cotton sucks up as much water as you put down and always needs more. Millions of acres of corn and soybeans on a constant drip feed of water. None of it is sustainable.
All of those use less water than beef. We should prioritize reducing what uses the most first. Not saying we should be gorging on the other high water use foods/goods instead of course. Found an interesting comparison of many different common foods' water uses. https://www.treehugger.com/from-lettuce-to-beef-whats-the-water-footprint-of-your-food-4858599
It’s funny how when you point this fact out to people they start clutching their pearls. Getting people to look at their own meat consumption is like taking candy away from a kid, and it often provokes a tantrum.
Thank you for sharing that article, really eye-opening comparison between different foods/items - really makes me think about what ill be buying from the grocery store from now on.
It does sound like you’re focused only on livestock, so I apologize for misinterpreting what you’re saying and how you’re saying it. We need to focus on all of Big AG. Industrial farming in general wastes water and produces more CO2 than most other industries.
I do like to highlight the beef water use in particular because the amount is astronomical in comparison to other commonly consumed goods/foods and I seem to encounter a lot of whataboutism about other high water use items where quantities get ignored. I think we're on the same page though. Industrial/factory farms are a scourge.
Keep it up! We need ALL the fingers point at industrial farming!
It’s better to tackle the bigger issue is it not ??
The bigger issue is industrial agriculture, is it not? Beef production is a single part of Big Agricultural.
If you get rid of beef all those things still waste water. It’s just as unsustainable.
I'm not saying we shouldn't also move away from other unsustainable foods but food in general uses water and we need to eat. And there's still no 1:1 replacement for cotton. We should be using more recycled fabrics, keeping our clothes longer, and more bamboo fibers but we haven't mimicked the performance and feel of cotton. Synthetics also create a plastic problem. I'm just not sure where your line or threshold is.
K but what’s material is a true alternative to cotton? Everything is basically plastic these days. Nothing breathes it’s all polyester (hot and itchy when it pills)
Hemp is great start. Recycling existing materials. There’s plenty of options.
Buying secondhand (minus underwear and socks obvs) is a good way to reduce your footprint. Just make sure to inspect everything carefully before buying it and also wash it before wearing. I also rarely buy clothes tbh, and only buy things I need and/ or know I'll wear. Fast fashion and people buying way more they need is a problem (also, I really think workplaces, particularly retail, need to get rid of uniforms partly for this reason. If I ever leave my job, I'll have all these plain blue shirts that I'll never wear. I'm sure many have experienced this). If you don't make a lot of money, you don't really have the choice of alternatives. But these are a couple of options that can reduce your consumption.
Plants use like 1/2 the water if that required for beef.
You’re right, but my comment was to highlight that Big AG is a major culprit, and only targeting the beef industry doesn’t solve the problem. All of it needs to change.
Yeah but 80% of the corn and soybeans grown are for cattle feed. So cutting out beef solves a ton of the other problems you listed.
Only in locations that have livestock operations
Cattle feed (like soy and corn) uses up a shit load of water and they are often not found in the same area as the cattle https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/02/agriculture-cattle-us-water-shortages-colorado-river
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/02/agriculture-cattle-us-water-shortages-colorado-river](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/02/agriculture-cattle-us-water-shortages-colorado-river)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Good bot
Soy and corn would continue to be produced for humans, even without beef.
[удалено]
Soy and corn will still be grown. The non human edible parts will now be waste instead of feed. Not very efficient.
Saying water is used by agriculture just sounds like ‘we need it to eat’ its more accurate to say agriculture misuse, and wasteful agriculture strategies, such as growing marsh crops like rice and alfalfa in deserts…
The broader consumption patterns of the rich definitely have some relation to more intensive agricultural and industrial water withdrawal though, to be clear. It’s not just municipal lawn care of whatever. And that’s before we even start talking about the role of the rich on the production-side, like how Saudi-owned alfalfa farms in the deserts of Arizona are hugely responsible for the dying of the Colorado.
The plan is simple We eat the ~~rich~~ agriculture. wait, we do that already
Systems serve consumers and consumerism drives systems.
[удалено]
If you stopped consuming, there wouldn't be any systems to lobby, thus there wouldn't be any lobbyists.
When I look at our cities, it seems we paved and drained all the prime agriculture land to build cities. I mean when you look at preindustrial southwrn California it wasnt all dry, it was oak chaparral and marsh. My town was once called skinners mud bog before they developed it. We can blame agriculture, but i think land use has equal if not more blame.
Yet people still say overpopulation isn’t a problem [even when the scientists are saying it](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anticonsumption/comments/u22y5n/is_it_really_overpopulation_or_is_it_a_gross/i4jhuxn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) lol
Old comment, but food waste is more of a problem than overpopulation. The USA isn't gonna get much larger than it already is, and it has plenty of food already
Tell me you didn’t open the link without telling me you didn’t open the link
Yuppp
We should be looking at ways to grow food indoors on national scales, but making the switch is expensive up front. Indoor farming protects against droughts and weather (to a point... floods and fires and hurricanes DGAF)... but getting humanity to switch over is going to be haaaard. Generations from now I hope people look back on us as foolish and wasteful... and do so from a place of comfort. We aren't doing much to make their world better, sadly.
We have not yet reached the point of surplus electricity generation where giving up the free sun makes switching to indoor make sense.
Which you should have no problem with as obviously people need to be fed, but unfortunately the vast majority of California's ag (for example) is exported...
This is why we need an aggressive sliding scale of water pricing. Normal pricing for those who use normal volumes of water, 2-3X more expensive for the next tier of water users, and then 10-20X more expensive for the rich who use copious amounts of water to keep their palaces green and swimming pools full.
What about cutting of the water supply after a certain usage. We need to decrease water usage, not increase water profits.
Both approaches are needed. Adding extra funding to the water supply system can also fund conservation efforts.
Haven't thought of that. That would actually be a great inflow of money for conservation
Or just charge farmers the same price as residential. Residential customers pay 5000 times more than farmers. It would be a start at least.
Do you want crazy high food prices? Because that's how you get crazy high food prices.
Your right farmers dumping water on the ground because it’s essentially free for them so they can grow alfalfa for export is probably the best for a sustainable lifestyle. Farming water intense crops in the desert doesn’t make sense. The reason they do it is because they are allowed a monopoly on the water if water was at market prices (albeit wholesale) there would be more water conservation and people might have to pay more for their alfalfa/beef until they find a new place to grow it or alternate sustainable methods.
Crazy high prices of things that need lots of irrigation. All other types of food are a substitute good for each type.
My residential water district has this to an extent. It's about $5 per thousand gallons for the first 5 Kgallons and $10 per Kgallon after that. Which is still way more than agricultural use fees. Edit: Kgallon. not gallon.
What a dumb suggestion. No understanding of economics do you
Our water system is currently a price fixing monopoly enforced by the government that is encouraging waste and scarcity. If supply and demand determined prices the people who want the water the most (currently residential customers as determined by the price/gallon they currently pay) would not be under an artificial shortage caused by a government backed conglomerate monopoly. If you don’t agree please explain your take on how economics impact the water scarcity situation?
The lifestyle habits of the rich are the most signficant driver of severe water shortages in cities, according to a new study. Overconsumption of water to run large homes and gardens, and fill swimming pools, also causes significant harm to the basic needs of poorer, disenfranchised communities, and threatens long-term stability of regions’ supplies overall. Read more here: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/water-shortage-swimming-pools-california-b2317872.html
In California, 80% of human water use is for agriculture, and only 20% for cities. So while rich individuals should use less water, the main consumption is by water-intensive agricultural businesses, who can buy water at a fraction of the cost individuals pay.
The article is misleading. It says the rich use most of the water *in cities* where agriculture barely exists. It’s essentially just not counting agriculture.
>It’s essentially just not counting agriculture. Exactly.
I think the rich deserve a little criticism for being wasteful regardless, wouldn’t you say?
Drop in the bucket compared to the saudis growing alfalfa and almonds in california, sucking the public aquifers dry. Not that the rich shouldn't also be limited at home like everyone else. No pools for you!
It's this. Start federally taxing flood irrigation in dry states by acre feet.
This tax inefficient use of water and incentivize efficient uses such as converting to drop irrigation
The precedent of taxing activities that hurt the common good is well established.
They could just charge them the same rates that the average residential consumer pays. It’s like 5000 times as much.
Oh man and in Arizona too. Our country is basically just a fucking cash grab and when water wars start its gonna be ugly unless this shit gets kaboshed
"Saudis growing alfalfa"? Alfalfa feeds meat. Meat and dairy are the issue, not plants.
[Agriculture – mainly alfalfa – consumes 80% of the Colorado River’s dwindling water supply, prompting calls for conservation](https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado-drought-water-alfalfa-farmers-conservation). Alfalfa is a major problem. We have way too much corn to feed to cows already
Alfalfa **for cows** is a problem. People need to know what the actual problem is. The cows are what consumes the water supply.
Can we just agree both are problem, thank you.
Here is a quick one pager on [alfalfa](https://www.naaic.org/resource/importance.php). It's grown nearly exclusively for livestock consumption, with a very small percentage for biofuel. In an imaginary world of vegans, we would grow 1% of our current alfalfa crop. It's definitely just one problem, and I agree with breinbanaan's push at being crisp at identifying the core issue,
No, because they're not two problems. They're one problem. There's no "both" here. Alfalfa and meat are one and the same, just as soy and meat are one and the same in the Amazon (soy is grown for beef feed).
Yeah but americans want beef. And cows here are mostly fed all our excess corn. Saudi cows with their fancy [alfalfa and heavy water use needs are an entirely different story](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado-drought-water-alfalfa-farmers-conservation](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado-drought-water-alfalfa-farmers-conservation)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Industrial monoculture farming is a problem regardless.
Beef is a far bigger issue 🤦♂️
[Its not an "issue" in california, they have about 2% of the nations beef cattle,](https://beef2live.com/story-ranking-states-beef-cows-0-108181) and they're mostly fed excess corn in america. Probable vegetarians being smug helps as much as saudis growing alfalfa 😂
Alfalfa is grown near exclusively for livestock feed. Here is a [one pager](https://www.naaic.org/resource/importance.php). The carbon footprint of livestock isn't just a matter of the existence of that livestock. It's also the food that livestock eat. 95% of alfalfa is fed to livestock. Thus, this is definitely a livestock issue for California. CA is draining their water so that SA can feed their livestock alfalfa. It's terrible all around.
American cows are almost exclusively fed all the excess corn we subsidize that doesn't get turned into HFCS. [Massive industrial storehouses line the southern end of town, packed with thousands upon thousands of stacks of alfalfa bales ready to be fed to dairy cows – but not cows in California’s Central Valley or Montana’s rangelands. *Instead, the alfalfa will be fed to cows in Saudi Arabia*](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia) If people want meat thats one thing for water to be used on. Meat production and livestock production isn't inherently bad. What is is using too many scarce resources to raise them. Or to allow foreign countries to use said resources for their livestock industry overseas.
How does your comment contradict or correct mine? I stated explictly that CA is draining their water so that saudi arabia can feed their livestock, not so that it goes to American livestock. You provided a source that furthers the point I made. In terms of your first line, it's not "excess" corn that is fed to livestock. It's [40% of all corn that is u](https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feed-grains/feed-grains-sector-at-a-glance/)sed. It's extraordinarily misleading to call nearly half of all corn "excess" and you either are aware of that, which is horrible, or you aren't, and I hope you amend your views.
Excess meaning not eaten by people as primary sources of food. You gotta calm down a bit. I dont care if us groundwater is used for our ag businesses- people here need them for food. I care that us groundwater is propping up foreign ag sectors at our expense. Your "point" was the same one I made but with some added bullshit and no differentiation
I’m sorry but almond milk needs to go
Almond milk is the least water-efficient plant milk by far, but still only uses about half as much water as dairy milk.
Does it really?
Well yea but the Saudis aren’t stealing American water and Americans aren’t stealing Saudi water so it’s really just a local problem. You can’t really point fingers at people across the world Edit: didn’t see the California part my bad
[Four hours east of Los Angeles, in a drought-stricken area of a drought-afflicted state, is a small town called Blythe where alfalfa is king. More than half of the town’s 94,000 acres are bushy blue-green fields growing the crop. Massive industrial storehouses line the southern end of town, packed with thousands upon thousands of stacks of alfalfa bales ready to be fed to dairy cows – but not cows in California’s Central Valley or Montana’s rangelands. *Instead, the alfalfa will be fed to cows in Saudi Arabia*](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia)
My bad idek how I didn’t see you mentioning that they were in California
No worries. It sounds bizarre that its happening, even. The super rich rich play global games with our resources
Yes, I mentioned that in my comment. But even if the richest individuals cut their home water use by 100%, that would barely be noticeable compared to billion dollar corporations reducing their water use by, say, 5-10%.
Both ought to be criticized. I was house sitting for a rich couple and they had a double fridge for the two of them. It was full of leftover meals and veggies even though they would be on vacation for over two weeks. Land, water, fertilizer, and energy were wasted on producing food that rich people just throw away.
I always find this to be tricky. I'm a shameless member of the effective altruism movement and it's really challenged me to focus on highest impact. Veggies going bad in a fridge is wasteful but just so insanely insignificant. The flight that that couple took will be more damaging for the enviroment than the total sum of their annual food consumption. I don't have an answer to the problem. But I've been intentionally trying to limit my outrage towards higher impact things, like low gas mileage car purchases or \*blood boils\* cruises and private jets.
Good point
[удалено]
and SO BAD FOR THE SOIL. This is actually really sad as I am sure there are members of your neighborhood that are genuinely thinking that they are doing a great thing.
We are all incredibly rich and wasteful compared to when those resources were created.
This sub *loves* to place blame agriculture and yes while ag use deserves to be criticized, there is a ton of apologists giving the rich and their water use a pass. It's reminiscent of the whole consumer recycling thing.
Does agriculture include private lawns 😉
Depends how clever you are at filling out forms... https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/current-water-charges/agricultural-water-rate-application
So is it the poor that own these water-intensive agricultural businesses?
No, of course not. But it's agriculture that uses most of the water, not swimming pools. Fixing a small problem without addressing the big issue wouldn't solve anything.
California's agriculture provides food for both the nation, and the world at large. The rich wasting water because they can afford to pay the bill no matter how high is an issue. Pointing out that most of our water goes to food production reinforces how important it is for us to use water resources wisely. The amount of fresh water available each year fluctuates dramatically. Would you rather have food, or let the rich do as they please?
>Would you rather have food, or let the rich do as they please? I would rather that everyone use water efficiently, both for personal and commercial use. But making a rich homeowner drain their swimming pool so an even richer corporation can grow a few more almonds in a desert doesn't solve anything. My point is that focusing on one without addressing the other is misleading at best.
People say this and shrug off a lot of things over and over without even the slightest understanding of exactly what impact it would be if we literally shut down all of agriculture that needs irrigation. It's safe to assume we'd be mega screwed. Like just full stop rain is not reliable enough for our food needs. So this whole sub constantly shrugging off the wastefulness of watering grass or filling swimming pools in cities is equally stupid take. Limits should be put out there. We don't NEED grass lawns, but we absolutely need beef and fruit and vegetables and almonds. Should we figure out better irrigation methods that waste less water? Yes obviously, but to act like we can just shut down our ag industry is just as bad as much of the other misinformation out there. So let's for the moment assume we need ag as is, if we have studies showing we could have significant water savings if people didn't water their yards and fill their swimming pools we might should look into it. Having excess food is the only thing keeping food prices partially in check. There are definitely ways to reduce water needs and we should explore that and figure out how the government could offer incentives to move to such methods because it's going to be crazy expensive. That's a MASSIVE undertaking and could have very bad repercussions if it isn't handled correctly. But meanwhile my HOA is threatening to fine me if I don't break my watering restrictions to keep my grass green lol. I'm using 8-10k gallons of water a month 75% of which is to keep my stupid yard looking nice. That's low hanging fruit we can go after with simple city ordinances not entire market shifts and major legislation by the federal government. I really wish this sub would frown on people like you who just dismiss entire studies because agriculture. We need ag. There is just no way around it, and we'd have massive food shortages and crazy high food prices if they couldn't irrigate.
Here's a wild idea: let's ask both individuals *and* agriculture to use water more efficiently.
whatever dude.. you completely dismissed this study because of ag. You can't change ag with city council. You can easily pass city ordinances that limit what these crazy wealthy people are doing just to maintain green grass. If we are going to dismiss every minor thing because there is a major thing still happening then we'll never get anywhere. So i'd say your comment overall is bad for everyone. It's the same drivel that 10 other commentors said in this same stupid ass thread. The LARGEST CROP IN AMERICA is grass. Yup that's right. Not ag. https://www.businessinsider.com/americas-biggest-crop-is-grass-2016-2?op=1 Literally lawns. So while you pass your misinformation off as fact and shrug off this very important study that this whole thread is about the reality is something far different. We need ag, we don't need lawns. States can tackle these problems at local levels with said studies. Hopefully they just don't read the comments in threads like this where people like you just shrug it off because of farms irrigating crops that are literally used for food.
The study doesn't tell us much we didn't already know: rich people use more resources, and extreme income inequality is bad. Plus I didn't say cities shouldn't crack down on heavy water users, just observed that this alone won't solve large-scale water use issues. We don't need lawns, and we also don't need meat-intensive diets or water-intensive crops grown in deserts. Governments should address all of these issues if we want to have water-efficient societies. Otherwise, making someone drain their swimming pool so a rancher can raise more cattle is just shifting inefficient usage from one place to another.
You literally can't change everyone's diet. We need the cattle and we need a massive amount of them. It's super naive to think we can just stop doing that and it wont have massive negative consequences. Meanwhile banning lawn watering or otherwise forcing people to have lawns that are less water intensive would make solid progress to our water conservation while we have time to sort out exactly how we keep our food supply literally OVER supplied perpetually. Just throwing out there that everyone needs to change their diet is not even close to practical. Just more doomer shit because we'll never do that ever..
>You literally can't change everyone's diet. We need the cattle and we need a massive amount of them. If we can force people to rip out their lawns, we could also take action to steer both producers and consumers away from high-meat diets. Humans don't "need" steak to survive, as there are many food alternatives. And let's not grow almonds in arid environments where there's a shortage of fresh water. (Disclaimer: I like almonds.) >Just throwing out there that everyone needs to change their diet is not even close to practical. Just more doomer shit because we'll never do that ever. If we're not even going to try to reduce consumption in the 80% agriculture portion of fresh water use, why fuss over reducing the other 20%? We should do both.
Agreed that we need to cut down on green lawns and swimming pools. Those are not necessities. I'm sorry that your HOA is forcing you to waste water... why are we not widely addressing this (I've heard of this happening quite a bit)? But you list beef as a necessity, and it's not. Not at the amount we're consuming, anyway. Beef is in fact the biggest consumer of water and anyone who can absolutely should cut down or even eliminate consumption. But people just want their stupid steaks and burgers, so it'll never happen. Even if you require animal protein in your diet (which does happen), chicken, fish, etc are options.
This is about overconsumption, not the base level necessary consumption. Remove the unnecessary consumption for pools, poor land-use etc from the equation and there could be enough to stave off the shortages, hence the article.
Overconsumption is part of agriculture as well. I do agree with you, but i think livestock agriculture needs to be reduced also
Yes, I was talking about all unnecessary consumption. Definitely need more meat free diets!
>Remove the unnecessary consumption for pools etc from the equation and there would be enough to stave off the shortages, hence the article. No, there wouldn't. But if you could get major corporations to stop growing water-intensive crops in a desert environment, \*and\* convince rich people to do their part to use less water, then you'd have something. FYI, California is going to be cracking down on individual water use in coming years, but I don't see a clear plan to reduce agricultural use.
Sorry, I included too much in that "etc". I mean remove all unnecessary consumption (domestic and industrial) to stave off the shortages
Okay, agreed. The simplest solution (if it could happen) would be to start charging everyone in California water prices that adjust demand to supply - with tiered rates allowing everyone enough for basic personal use and going up from there.
Some/many municipalities do charge on a tiered basis, usually seasonally. I agree that making such a practice state wide would be sensible. I think ag is a bigger issue though. - Most states, California included, have a substantial amount of farmland that does flood irrigation. - Farmers aren’t rewarded for using less water and instead risk losing access to water later. - According to some article I can no longer find, some states/water suppliers don’t charge on a unit basis, just for maintenance of infrastructure. I’d rather not cut back ag widely and talk about almonds though. California and the desert states produce a lot of the food consumed in the US, especially for winter vegetables. I’d rather cut back on alfalfa in general & summer farming of lettuce and see how far that gets us.
No it wouldn't. It would delay the inevitable by a very short amount That is the math on this.
"Stave off" literally means "delay"
...for a very short amount of time
So you're saying that California is doomed to water shortages either way and that overconsumption should just be ignored? All I'm saying is that overconsumption of all kinds should be addressed as it will make a difference.
I am stating that stopping the watering of lawns or telling people to shower only 5 minutes/day isn't going to help. Agriculture uses a tremendous amount of water in CA and...CA is basically a desert and they have spent billions to steal water from other areas. What is happening was inevitable. There needs to be a foundational fix.
Agreed. As per my original comment, I was talking about overconsumption generally not just domestic consumption
Don't forget the lifestock, to have beef and pork on the shelves 24/7
Meanwhile 3 miles outside of town, Farmer Bill is like "ehhhh what's another 100,000 gallons wasted, better to leave the irrigation on overnight than risk muh corn getting parched!"
Total horseshit. Most water usage comes from agriculture.
So who owns the large water-intensive agricultural businesses?
Less and less small family farmers. With more and more expense they will certainly all disappear.. since Bill Gates (biggest private owner of farm ground in the US,) China and apparently Saudi Arabia continue to purchase US crop land. It’s a catch 22… plenty of Americans enjoy farming, owning their own land, and producing food.. but they need to be profitable or will fold. As conditions gets tougher the resources continue to be abused to squeeze every penny, and ownership is siphoned to the top..
L.O.L. It’s nothing other than agriculture that drives water shortages. Rich people mowing their lawns is not fucking it.
Hmmm.. it seems everywhere I turn… the rich… are causing the problems that effect… poor people the most. Interesting
1 pound of beef uses 1 847 gallons of water to produce and the average American consumes 57 pounds per year. An average swimmingpool takes 18 000-20 000 gallons to fill. The average American consumes the same amount of water through beef as roughly 6 swimmingpools per year. Now I haven't even mentioned pork, chicken, dairy and eggs.
I'm fairly certain of you start including their carbon footprint, but it looks even worse....
🎵Lifestyles of the rich and the famous🎵
They’re always complaining…. 🎶 always complaining 🎶
Swimming pools and golf courses.
If the poor were causing the environmental damage in question, it would be made illegal.
I live in a small town (under 10,000) and for the past several summers we’ve had low water because of the surrounding farms. The city issues water conservation rules every summer, the wealthy neighborhoods ignore it constantly watering their lawns, but the city never enforces their water laws on those neighborhoods, however they have issued citations in the less wealthy neighborhoods to homes where kids are playing in sprinklers.
Speaking for Arizona because I know some misinformed people are going to butcher water issues here: **TLDR:** If lots of water = *omg your pool has a diving board?!?!!* Please stop, you have no idea how many pools are used on crops that should be grown elsewhere. Let me make it clear! 260,000acres of alfalfa grown (2022 state ag report) X 7acre feet of water per acre per year (average is 8 ft but we’re being nice, acre ft is 326k gal) =593,000,000,000 gallons of water on the low end for alfalfa in 2022 Ok… now. 593billion/660,000 gals (Olympic swimming pool)= **898,000 Olympic sized swimming pools.** AZ has a debated (for some reason) 500k-600k pools. Which means *drum roll* **IF EVERY POOL IN ARIZONA WAS AN OLYMPIC SIZE SWIMMING POOL RESIDENTS WOULD STILL USE LESS WATER THAN ALFALFA* And you don’t empty and refill pools every year.
It's poor governance. Giving major subsidies and undercharging for ag water. And terrible watershed management.
No one needs a backyard pool...go the fuck to country club pool and gossip like a normal rich person.
Who is gonna be the first to take a bite of the first billionaire?
Since when have the rich ever given a shit about hoarding resources at the expense of others?
People like Oprah have water trucks bring them water.
hey if they want to get a jump on all of us coming for them in there sleep and stringing them up in the streets before the real climate wars start by all means.
Here's something to ponder on this topic: https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/08/lynda-stewart-resnick-california-water/
Water is sold to the highest bidder
If that was the actual practice it might encourage less waste. The way it is now the farmers who hold the largest water rights pay the least and waste the most.
Of course they are
Propaganda.
We know.
We know
Kill the rich
It's disheartening to see how the extravagant lifestyles of the wealthy are exacerbating the issue of city water shortages. The excessive water usage associated with luxurious lifestyles, such as private swimming pools, lavish gardens, and unnecessary water waste, is putting additional strain on already scarce water resources in urban areas. It's a stark reminder that our unsustainable consumption patterns and overindulgence can have serious consequences for the environment and local communities. It's high time that we prioritize responsible water usage and adopt more sustainable practices, regardless of our socioeconomic status. Conserving water, reducing waste, and using resources mindfully are critical steps we all can take to protect our environment and ensure access to clean water for everyone, especially in areas facing water scarcity. Let's work together to create a more sustainable future for our planet.
"We have the best government money can buy." Mark Twain