But despite news stories about drought-stricken Americans in the West taking shorter showers and ditching lawns to conserve their water supply, those efforts are unlikely to amount to much â residential water use accounts for just 13 percent of water drawn from the Colorado River. According to research published in Nature Sustainability, the vast majority of water is used by farmers to irrigate crops.
And when you zoom in to look at exactly which crops receive the bulk of the Colorado Riverâs water, 70 percent goes to alfalfa, hay, corn silage, and other grasses that are used to fatten up cattle for beef and cows for dairy. Some of the other crops, like soy, corn grain, wheat, barley, and even cotton, may also be used for animal feed.
This is a Very Big deal. How can anyone plan on a future living somewhere there may not be enough water for daily life? Living in Texas is definitely not a party, but I am glad I don't live in one of the states affected by this. I wonder how much this may affect water refugees moving eastward in the next decade.
But despite news stories about drought-stricken Americans in the West taking shorter showers and ditching lawns to conserve their water supply, those efforts are unlikely to amount to much â residential water use accounts for just 13 percent of water drawn from the Colorado River. According to research published in Nature Sustainability, the vast majority of water is used by farmers to irrigate crops.
And when you zoom in to look at exactly which crops receive the bulk of the Colorado Riverâs water, 70 percent goes to alfalfa, hay, corn silage, and other grasses that are used to fatten up cattle for beef and cows for dairy. Some of the other crops, like soy, corn grain, wheat, barley, and even cotton, may also be used for animal feed.
Interesting how we are repealing more regulations, at that same time we are seeing more food borne illness outbreaks. I'm not smart enough to know if we had the right regulations in place, but it doesnt seem prudent to slash existing regulations without consideration for replacing with better regulation.
CDC Provides Final Update on E. coli Outbreak Linked to Romaine Lettuce The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a final update on January 9 to the outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 infections linked to romaine lettuce to advise that the outbreak appears to be over and contaminated lettuce that made people sick in the outbreak should no longer be available. The CDC reported last month that it it, along with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had identified the outbreak strain of E. coli O157:H7 in sediment collected within an agricultural water reservoir on an Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. farm, which was identified in traceback. The FDA is continuing to investigate to learn more about how the E. coli bacteria could have entered the agricultural water reservoir and ways romaine lettuce from the farm could have been contaminated, and whether there are other sources of the outbreak. According to the CDC, since the last update on December 13, 2018, three additional E. coli O157:H7 infections were reported, bringing the total number in the outbreak to 62 cases from 16 states and the District of Columbia. Twenty-five people were hospitalized, including two people who developed a type of kidney failure called hemolytic uremic syndrome. No deaths were reported. Illnesses started on dates ranging from October 5, 2018 to December 4, 2018
Brita Unveils New In-Throat Water Filters Representatives from Brita, the nation’s bestselling brand of household water filtration products, held a press event Wednesday to unveil a new line of filters designed to be installed directly inside users’ throats. “Our patented ThroatPURE in-body filtration system is the quickest, most convenient way to remove toxins and impurities from drinking water, wherever you are,” said Brita’s head of North American marketing, Kathy O’Doyle, explaining that each unit comes with a speculum-like esophageal dilation device to allow for easy installation and removal of cartridges, and noting that the new product takes just three minutes to purify a 10-ounce glass of water, which the consumer simply holds in their mouth during the filtration process. “The filter is good for up to 3,000 gallons or three months of use. But knowing when to replace it is easy; a bright red indicator light will be visible through your neck, letting you know it’s time for a new one.” O’Doyle confirmed that many users will at first notice some small chunks of charcoal on their tongues and in their teeth, but that this would cease following a few uses of the system.
Brita Unveils New In-Throat Water Filters Representatives from Brita, the nation’s bestselling brand of household water filtration products, held a press event Wednesday to unveil a new line of filters designed to be installed directly inside users’ throats. “Our patented ThroatPURE in-body filtration system is the quickest, most convenient way to remove toxins and impurities from drinking water, wherever you are,” said Brita’s head of North American marketing, Kathy O’Doyle, explaining that each unit comes with a speculum-like esophageal dilation device to allow for easy installation and removal of cartridges, and noting that the new product takes just three minutes to purify a 10-ounce glass of water, which the consumer simply holds in their mouth during the filtration process. “The filter is good for up to 3,000 gallons or three months of use. But knowing when to replace it is easy; a bright red indicator light will be visible through your neck, letting you know it’s time for a new one.” O’Doyle confirmed that many users will at first notice some small chunks of charcoal on their tongues and in their teeth, but that this would cease following a few uses of the system.
Water rights are very different in my part of Australia. IIRC, Sustainable Diversion Limits are set for each Water Resource Management Area or Groundwater Management Area. Then people get water shares or rights to pump a certain amount of water. There are high security and low security shares. But during water shortage, you don't get your whole allocation. And this being Australia, that's a lot of the time. There are no such things as senior water rights like in Western US, where the first rights developed get as much as there is, while others get nothing.
Water can be sold or traded as can water rights. So if you don't need water one year you can sell it to someone else but chances are they don't need it then, either so prices are low. And you can sell your whole right permanently.
There are also environmental water rights, particularly for the Murray and Darling River systems that flow through 4 States and are the subject of a lot of squabbling. In part those are made up from water rights bought back from landowners. A whole irrigation district near me was shut down when they voted to sell their rights back to the government. There was a lot of strong-arm in that, but the landowners weren't getting enough water most years to make it worth while and they were looking at paying a lot for system upgrades.
It seems bizarre to me that California allows farmers to pump as much groundwater as they want, if that is the case. I'm all in favour of food but probably the most effective strategy is a management plan where everyone shares some of the hurt.
Sacramenna seems like a weird one to be leading the pack. It's hot there though. But on a big-ass river. I wonder if they're including some of the cropland that's inside the metro area. Grapes and nuts all over the place there. Same with Fresno. Yeah they have lawns but it's not particularly lush. Maybe the soil's just super sandy and doesn't hold moisture. And I got the impression they'd cut their usage pretty dramatically. Maybe after 2009...
I would hope that the California numbers have come down somewhat since 2009, especially in the last year. I remember being in Sacramento at the state capitol building some years ago in the middle of summer. It was well over 100 degrees in the middle of the day and the sprinklers were on, flooding the massive lawn and running down the sidewalks and streets. They had obviously been on for at least a couple of hours. It was shocking even then.
There are some huge ranges across California. But Dallas uses just barely more water per capita than Seattle? I guess St. Augustine grass doesn't take much watering.
Sacramenna seems like a weird one to be leading the pack. It's hot there though. But on a big-ass river. I wonder if they're including some of the cropland that's inside the metro area. Grapes and nuts all over the place there. Same with Fresno. Yeah they have lawns but it's not particularly lush. Maybe the soil's just super sandy and doesn't hold moisture. And I got the impression they'd cut their usage pretty dramatically. Maybe after 2009...
We live in southern California, and have always been fully aware that we live in a desert climate. About 14 years ago, we got rid of our lawn and replaced it with a succulent garden and drought tolerant grasses and perennials. About 3 years ago when the latest drought was starting, we started collecting warm up water from showers and dish washing to water the plants, rarely using our hose, and when we do use it, I water at night for less evaporation. We shower less (and don't even stink), and turn off the water when soaping up. We don't buy bottled water. Every time it rains (by some little miracle, it is raining right now), I put out rain barrels and buckets to collect as much as possible for plant watering. Even hanging our laundry out to dry on a clothesline saves water that would be used creating the energy to run a dryer.
Bringing back the desal plant is probably inevitable here in Santa Barbara, but it is very energy intensive. With Gov. Brown finally coming out with mandatory water restrictions, maybe people will realize how much difference it can make to simply conserve.
I found this pretty interesting:
There are some huge ranges across California. But Dallas uses just barely more water per capita than Seattle? I guess St. Augustine grass doesn't take much watering.
But if crops that begin with the letter A would find ways to reduce their water use by 10%, it would free up as much domestic water as the state uses now.
/ballpark guesstimate but you get the point.
Yes, that would be huge, but I can't get the farmers to return my calls.
We live in southern California, and have always been fully aware that we live in a desert climate. About 14 years ago, we got rid of our lawn and replaced it with a succulent garden and drought tolerant grasses and perennials. About 3 years ago when the latest drought was starting, we started collecting warm up water from showers and dish washing to water the plants, rarely using our hose, and when we do use it, I water at night for less evaporation. We shower less (and don't even stink), and turn off the water when soaping up. We don't buy bottled water. Every time it rains (by some little miracle, it is raining right now), I put out rain barrels and buckets to collect as much as possible for plant watering. Even hanging our laundry out to dry on a clothesline saves water that would be used creating the energy to run a dryer.
Bringing back the desal plant is probably inevitable here in Santa Barbara, but it is very energy intensive. With Gov. Brown finally coming out with mandatory water restrictions, maybe people will realize how much difference it can make to simply conserve.
But if crops that begin with the letter A would find ways to reduce their water use by 10%, it would free up as much domestic water as the state uses now.
