It's particularly galling when many California cities have desalination as an option and it's opposed in many places. Farming is going to have to cut back regardless, though, since it uses 80% of the water. (Not including environmental use.)
Why is farming an improper use of water? I mean nations need to grow food and not rely on other countries as their bread basket, that seems like good systems planning. As for the types of food I suppose that is a good discussion to have but how do you deal with the reality that beef is an enormous use of water over nearly every single crop?
Growing food in the desert is the improper part. There are plenty of areas in other parts of the country that aren't experiencing crippling drought. That is where water intensive crops should be grown.
Most southwest desert farming only exists because of government subsidies. If farmers actually had to pay market rate for water most farms in this region would not be possible.
That's a good point, something I am curious about now is the water costs of desert farming versus cattle ranching. Just wondering how close the gap actually is, I honestly want to say desert farming uses less resources than raising cattle for slaughter but I'm unsure and just guessing from the hip here.
I think part of the problem, alfalfa and rice and almond trees, among other thirsty plants, are allegedly being ripped up as they're unprofitable and unsustainable. I think @azemetre is correct in holding up growing crops as a virtue, but we should be careful as to which, where, and how we grow.
I'm not sure how they compare in terms of water, but cattle ranching could certainly be done with less impact in less dry regions as well.
One unique problem to cattle ranching in the southwest is that many of them are allowed to free range on public lands. Those cattle eat a lot of native vegetation which leads to worse wildfires and greatly harm native wildlife. They also trample cryptobiotic soil, resulting in much worse dust storms.
I wish we could move agriculture entirely out of areas that get less than 5" of rain per year, especially since so much of the country is better suited for it. Subsidies are sticky though, not many farmers will willingly give up their handouts and few politicians want to fight that battle.
> Cattle ranching could certainly be done with less impact in less dry regions as well.
I doubt that would solve the problem. It would just transplant it. Cattle, pork, and chicken demand has dramatically compounded corresponding production in Brazil and deforestation. We don't need to move the rice, alfalfa, and intensive production of ruminating animals moved around like checkers pieces. The Ogalalla aquifer of the Midwest supporting multiple states' peoples and farms is also drying out. We need to rethink our water use, not move the problem around.
I don't think farming in California will ever go away, but conserving water (say, cutting back by 20%) means that some crops might not be grown in California anymore. And the farming that's done will use water more efficiently.
(Also, regarding the "bread basket," grain is not typically grown out west, I don't think? That's east of the Rockies.)
This is true, but remember that averages can be misleading. Available water is a very spiky graph [1]. Reservoirs balance it out some, but cities need and can afford reliable water, so backup sources are good, even if they're expensive.
It's a desert now. Or will be. There's no more snowmelt to rely on. Rainfall is down. Aquifers are depleted so much the ground is sinking. Someone said I'm this thread that San Diego isn't a desert because they get 20% more rain than a desert by definition. 10 inches per year is really not a lot to replenish your water levels.
