This is kind of fascinating — that 8 oz steak you're (hypothetically) eating used as much water in its production (both for the cows and their feed) as a 10 hour shower.
What that tells me is that our current agricultural subsidies, in terms of water cost, is unsustainable. Does that mean a hit to agricultural employment? Definitely. Does that mean not using California water to grow fodder that gets shipped overseas? Definitely. Does that mean beef prices will go up? Yes — but that's a reflection of the actual cost, not what we'd like the cost to be if resources were unlimited.
(h/t +Doyce Testerman)
How to Take Long Showers and Still Save the World From Drought
While all water conservation is good, not all water conservation is equal. If you make a few smarter choices, you really shouldn’t feel guilty about the things listed below — provided you don’t over-indulge….
That also implies, by the way, that some of those strict water guidelines — e.g., you have to ask for a glass of water at restaurants — are more conservation theater than meaningful savings.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/03/20/california_megadrought_it_s_already_begun.html has some other stats on California and water use. 80% of California water goes to agriculture, not people with swimming pools and car washes and fountains. 10% of that amount just goes to growing almonds.
I mean, I like almonds, but at the expense of someone taking a shower?
One problem is the whole local thing.
Oddly,
No mention of California Cheese. I am sure it is just as costly as leather and meat, but I was a bit confused about how leather and meat being the same cost, since you know, same cows.
Also, the paper thing. Where is the wood for that paper coming from? What about recycled paper. All of those things matter.
And yes, California's agriculture needs to be shut down ASAP.
+Stan Pedzick It's easier to turn off the fountain at city hall and tell restaurants that people have to ask for a glass of water.
I did have some thoughts on the flaws of this article over night.
One flaw is that there are places (Denver Water) where none of the water is involved in agricultural (other than growing lawns), so anything that is saved is a good thing. I am not sure, but I suspect that there are similar situations in California. Same with many of the mountain towns in Colorado, they have their one source of water, and not serving water to thousands of tourists is probably helpful in times of drought.
Another flaw was no mention of all the cheap natural gas that California is enjoying thanks to all the water being pumped out of aquifers for dealing.
So yes, there are many things we can do to save water that would no seem to make sense, but in other situations every little bit saved helps.
+Stan Pedzick Good point that water sources (and districts) aren't completely fungible, though that may be in some cases a political artifact, and begins to break down when demand exceeds supply — as the metro area grows, Denver Water has looked at other potential sources that would impact (or be impacted by) agricultural use.
Also a good point on water usage in fracking. It extends the general argument of "water goes to a lot of things other than wasteful visitors at restaurants and lazy showerers," but it's a significant issue in California and elsewhere, both in terms of draining aquifers and in terms of polluting remaining groundwater.