Community Chat

[Lion]

On 4/2/2015 eloise said:

On 4/2/2015 Preds said:

We can put pipelines all over, but we can't get water to our own? We have more than we need on this side and would love to send it where it's needed. Why can't we?

Not lucrative for oil gazillionaires.

It's also not the answer. All water sources are *limited*. Diverting currently stable water sources to places like the deserts of AZ is simply depleting another water source.

The Canadian and US states surrounding the Great Lakes have been extremely careful about approving any diversions from those waters. Thank goodness for them.

The answer isn't to just divert water. The answers are in water conservation and for people to realize water is precious and start treating it that way.

[Kachina624]

How many Californians have filled in their swimming pools, how many golf courses have closed? When they do these things, I'll believe they're serious about water conservation. The rest of the Southwest has been enduring this drought for over 10 years. Elephant Butte, the largest reservoir in NM, is at 14% capacity! and we have to share that water with Texas. We don't have lawns and our water use is restricted. It's rare for anyone to have a swimming pool here.

[cody2]

On 4/2/2015 sidsmom said:

On 4/2/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 4/2/2015 sidsmom said:

"If California need water......

Reduce livestock production. Eat less meat.

It's going for produce, mostly.

Unfortunately livestock needs more water than anything....for the alfalfa, feed, pastures, as well as water for the animal, water to manufacture the meat, etc.etc.....so, so, so much more than produce.

Our cattle are range fed. In a normal rainfall year we never have to feed hay. We manage our cattle numbers by the amount of cattle that each acre can support without supplementing hay because hay is VERY expensive. We also water our cattle in natural ponds that collect the water that comes from rain and runoff in the mountains. Therefore we don't deplete groundwater for them either. The majority of ranchers in this area do the same.

On the other hand, our rowcrops (vegetables) pump a LOT of groundwater. It is also very expensive because of the power and maintenance needed for those pumps. Row crops make big money. I wish we had all flat rowcrop land. It produces a whole lot more profit then cattle on range land and hills. If we had to buy hay and pump water for them we would have gone broke decades ago.

[september]

I'm a Californian who doesn't have a swimming pool, and I don't golf. I'm VERY serious about water conservation. We haven't used the lawn sprinklers in at least 5 years, and I haven't used my nice whirlpool tub in about 2 years. There are days when I have sore muscles, and I think about how good it would feel to use the tub...then I think about how much water it uses.

[cody2]

On 4/2/2015 melfie said:

On 4/2/2015 sidsmom said:

New York Times (March 2014): "Meat Makes the Planet Thirsty"

Excerpts from the article:

<em>But for those truly interested in lowering their water footprint, those numbers pale next to the water required to fatten livestock. A 2012 study in the journal Ecosystems by Mesfin M. Mekonnen and Arjen Y. Hoekstra, both at the University of Twente in the Netherlands, tells an important story. Beef turns out to have an overall water footprint of roughly four million gallons per ton produced. By contrast, the water footprint for “sugar crops” like sugar beets is about 52,000 gallons per ton; for vegetables it’s 85,000 gallons per ton; and for starchy roots it’s about 102,200 gallons per ton.</em>

<em>Factor in the kind of water required to produce these foods, and the water situation looks even worse for the future of animal agriculture in drought-stricken regions that use what’s known as “blue water,” or water stored in lakes, rivers and aquifers, which California and much of the West depend on.</em>

<em>Vegetables use about 11,300 gallons per ton of blue water; starchy roots, about 4,200 gallons per ton; and fruit, about 38,800 gallons per ton. By comparison, pork consumes 121,000 gallons of blue water per ton of meat produced; beef, about 145,000 gallons per ton; and butter, some 122,800 gallons per ton. There’s a reason other than the drought that Folsom Lake has dropped as precipitously as it has. Don’t look at kale as the culprit. (Although some nuts, namely almonds, consume considerable blue water, even more than beef.) That said, a single plant is leading California’s water consumption.</em>

<em>Unfortunately, it’s a plant that’s not generally cultivated for humans: alfalfa. Grown on over a million acres in California, alfalfa s*cks up more water than any other crop in the state. And it has one primary destination: cattle. Increasingly popular grass-fed beef operations typically rely on alfalfa as a supplement to pasture grass. Alfalfa hay is also an integral feed source for factory-farmed cows, especially those involved in dairy production.</em>

Allan Savory disputes this. He was able to show moving large herds of livestock vastly improves grasslands and can even reverse desertification. http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change?la...

Exactly. We do a regular rotation thru different fields. When they eat one field down we move them to another so that that field can regenerate. The reason lots of cattle were originally pastured on Federal lands was for the benefit of improving the natural grasses.

[foundinlv]

On 4/2/2015 Kachina624 said: How many Californians have filled in their swimming pools, how many golf courses have closed? When they do these things, I'll believe they're serious about water conservation. The rest of the Southwest has been enduring this drought for over 10 years. Elephant Butte, the largest reservoir in NM, is at 14% capacity! and we have to share that water with Texas. We don't have lawns and our water use is restricted. It's rare for anyone to have a swimming pool here.

Pools cannot be filled in. All that rebar under the concrete has to be removed and it requires hiring a contractor and big equipment costing thousands of dollars to correctly rip it out.

[hennypenny]

I would like to make a few points.

First, gov Brown spoke yesterday and mandated 25 % water cuts. Mr henny and I have almost an acre and have cut back by 50%. We water the fruit trees and the roses. Lawns are dry.

Second, the Governor never mentioned the massive water usage for fracking and the dangerous chemicals that are added and forced into what little aquifer is left.

I live a mile and a half from Montecito. Many are having major wells dug on their properties that will deplete the waters that Santa Barbara relies upon. They have no regard for anyone but themselves.

Many of the cattle ranchers in our county have had to ship their cattle to Colorado and other states with water. They can no longer feed their herds.

The grape growers will suffer but not as badly as other farmers. The Grapes require much less water. Avocados are a huge crop here and many of the growers are cutting back their trees in hopes that they will survive in a dormant stage.

It is a very scary time for us and we are terrified of fire.

I truly wish we could have water pipelines instead of oil and gas, and instead of high speed rails.

I feel a tiny scoch better after my rant.

[Lucky Charm]

On 4/2/2015 ShowMe said:

On 4/2/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 4/2/2015 ShowMe said:

On 4/2/2015 Lion said:

On 4/2/2015 tansy said

My son said many of the owners of big homes in Montecito are having water trucked in to water their lawns and gardens.

I wonder where the truckers are getting the water.

I just asked that very same question. LOL

Ooops, me too!

OMGosh, this made me laugh out loud....... Guess we want to know, and hope someone can answer our question.......

I'm thinking it's got to be a 1%er.

[hennypenny]

The water is coming from wells in nearby towns. The very wealthy can pay the huge sums needed to truck it in.

[esmeraldagooch]

On 4/2/2015 eloise said:

On 4/2/2015 Preds said:

We can put pipelines all over, but we can't get water to our own? We have more than we need on this side and would love to send it where it's needed. Why can't we?

Not lucrative for oil gazillionaires.

Another train of oil derailed.....