comment: >
  
  To be fair California grows a lot of the produce in this country.  What does AZ and Utah grow?
context: And NY investors are buying up water rights as an investment. >
  
  Yes, lets distract from the larger issue of California growing water hungry cash crops. >
  
  Yeah, golf courses in the desert are a much better use of that water! >
  
  Yeah, the relatively small amount of water saved from not watering golf courses can now be used towards water almonds and pistachio's. Why don't you recommend showering every other day too? >
  
  
  relatively small amount
  
  Have you looked up golf course water usage? >
  
  Lmao bro are you seriously saying golf course usage is on par with what's used by agriculture? >
  
  No.
  But are you seriously saying golf courses are a relatively small amount of water usage? How is 1 million gallons a day, for one golf course, small? >
  
  Time to take water away from the farmers growing shit IN THE DESERT >
  
  On the Internet and in my house I can agree with how stupid it is to grow anything here. Outside and at work I keep my mouth zipped closed because I like having a job working with special needs kids, and the program's principal, (my boss), owns all the almond orchards surrounding the city we live in. 
  Almonds in the desert. They want the rest of us here to suffer. >
  
  Cry me a river >
  
  I have no water to spare for that. We're all dehydrated here. >
  
  So co resident here. We are fine >
  
  Your are fucked and you don't even know it >
  
  How so? >
  
  Sweet summer child... have you not been paying attention? Maybe you love downvotes? >
  
  No water restrictions here in SD >
  
  yeah exactly... that's the problem.. 
  San Diego has high priority for Colorado River water so your lack of restrictions is quite literally cutting off water supplies to other areas >
  
  Bruh just stop trying to grow almonds and barley in the fucking desert, problem solved. >
  
  And alfafa in El Centro. >
  
  That all gets shipped to the Middle East to feed their live stock >
  
  Most does not get shipped to the Middle East. California has the largest dairy industry in America, and those dairy cows are the largest consumer of our alfalfa. >
  
  Taken as a whole, the Arizona alfalfa industry is also similar to California's in the sense that most of their alfalfa stays in America. Alfalfa exports are often used as a scapegoat, but the reality is that the dairy industry uses a lot of alfalfa, and America has a very large dairy industry. >
  
  Common reminders that people don't seem to get.
  Las Vegas and Phoenix both reclaim a large amount of their water
  The fountains in Las Vegas use undrinkable well water from the Casino's land
  LA uses the same water source as Las Vegas but LV reclaims around 90% of their water and LA reclaims around 2%
  Las vegas gained 750,000 people in 20 years, but used 26 billion gallons of water less
  California farmers use as much water is alloted to them (or it will be cut) and often use open air watering systems that lose a lot for evaporation, on top of growing the most wster intensive crops possible, often to carry overseas >
  
  Las Vegas sure, but not Phoenix, we are doing next to no conservation. >
  
  I just moved to Arizona from Canada.  Specifically, I lived in Ottawa where water can be considered limitless.  I was expecting a larger contrast in attitudes toward water consumption, and I have been surprised at the lack of conservation culture here. >
  
  Problem is that you need 3 things to grow crops: wide open spaces, lots of sunshine, and water.  And of those, only 1 can be effectively transported.  
  We could eventually develop better vertical farming systems, and maybe some grow lamps powered by nuke plants, and build it all in a naturally rainy location… but until then, expect the farming to happen where the sunshine and space are. >
  
  California's fertile soil is some of the best in the nation and there are a number of crops we grow there that can't be grown anywhere else.
  Livestock on the other hand consume FAR more water for how much edible product you get and can be raised nearly anywhere in the contiguous 48 states. We ought to ship the cows back to the Midwest >
  
  Or just reduce meat consumption >
  
  Given that beef prices have doubled or tripled in 10 years, that’s kinda making itself happen. >
  
  
  In a closed-door negotiation last week over the fate of the Colorado River, representatives from California’s powerful water districts proposed modeling what the basin’s future would look like if some of the West’s biggest cities – including Phoenix and Las Vegas – were cut off from the river’s water supply, three people familiar with the talks told CNN.
  
  ​
  
  Around 90% of Las Vegas’ water is from the river.
  
  Okay, what kind of crack are they smoking? >
  
  Read further into the article:
  
  One source familiar with the meeting disputed that California asked to model cutting other agencies and cities all the way to zero but stipulated that if California was to compromise to other states’ demands, it also wanted to see one of the options follow the river’s current strict priority system “as the default baseline.” >
  
  A. Cut the Saudis off first, since they lease a ton of land in AZ to grow alfalfa and use water FOR FREE.
  B. I just saw an article today about how investors in NY are buying up Colorado river water rights like crazy. Is the government going to squash that? >
  
  Of course not. It's a dumb system where if you don't use your full entitlement, it gets cut. Economists have been calling it dumb for decades, and to switch to a water market, and now the government is facing the inevitable consequences of their actions. >
  
  "California floated cutting major Southwest cities off Colorado River water ..." ___________ Fortunately, we live in the UNITED States of America and have a federal apparatus to resolve disputes among states. >
  
  Alfalfa alone uses more water than all the houses and apartments in the Western US. Total residential water use is like 14%. >
  
  Gotta feed those camels in the middle east. >
  
  Ahhh good to see the Resnick family is still EnRon’ing water away from the state and people who need it to grow pistachios in the fucking desert >
  
  Messing with water laws and rights will generate some endless court fights. How about if the Feds float the idea of export tariffs on animal feed, high enough so that those operations would no longer be profitable? That might bring some of the agricorps to the table. >
  
  Aren't export tariffs unconstitutional?
  Something must be done, and honestly an outright ban is probably the best way legally. >
  
  TIL: Export tariffs are indeed unconstitutional. And renaming it as a "user fee" probably wouldn't work anymore either. 
  The president should be able to ban exports, at least for a year. >
  
  For those who’re boasting how California is a liberal hellscape, I present you evidence here how the state can be as #MAGA conservative with its farming lobbyists as Alabama or Texas. >
  
  The Colorado River does not belong to California.  It mostly runs through Arizona. >
  
  It ain't called the Arizona River >
  
  Yeah, well now do the Mississippi River. >
  
  I would prefer not to if that's an option. >
  
  Everyone should read the book Water Knife. >
  
  The water wars are about to begin… >
  
  Glad I don't live in the desert anymore >
  
  But have you stopped eating winter vegetables grown in the desert? >
  
  Ah fuck. I can't believe you've done this. >
  
  Whoever said that capitalism was rational? >
  
  The problem is government guaranteed water rights to farmers. If California made all water market rate, suddenly growing thirsty crops in the desert with wasteful water practices wouldn't be so profitable. As long as the CA government chooses to vastly subsidize water to special interest groups, you're going to get these kinds of problems. >
  
  Ding ding ding. If California farmers paid as much for water as California homeowners, they’d be a lot more conservative about their water usage. >
  
  What was his name? >
  
  This is what the future holds if we don't rethink how things are done.  Plus, throw in a regional/civil war or two. >
  
  Time to stop those almonds trees in a desert >
  
  Almond trees account for a rounding error in most places. Colorado River water is overwhelmingly used on alfalfa. And remember California has a lot of water sources. The Colorado is only one of them.
  Edit: since someone was not understanding. Almond trees consume a lot of water. But many of them are grown in areas where water is abundant. Rice also consumes massive amounts of water. Again.. tends to be grown where that's not a problem. I'm all for not growing almonds where the only source of water is ground water. >
  
  Here's a crazy thought: maybe the places in the fucking desert that are being used for water hungry agriculture, as well as golf courses, and every other place like that should have to pay premiums for water access or be cut off. Also, looking at you, AZ, with your Saudi farms and shit.
  It's just hard to feel much sympathy for the places that thought it a good idea to build up in a desert and then also not be careful with their water usages. You cared more about having green grass in a landscape that can't support it. Lie in your bed. 
  I just feel bad for the lower class citizens that have no options. >
  
  Golf courses use basically no water compared to agriculture. >
  
  One has a higher value to society than the other >
  
  I mean if you decided to live somewhere there’s no water, but still expected water, that’s on you >
  
  If you decided to grow something where there's no water, but still expected water, that's on you. >
  
  That agriculture is corporate agriculture.  So.... Is California bending to corporate profit motive or (as California is the produce breadbasket for the nation) are they being altruistic to the rest of the nation (which generally detests them)? >
  
  I think the only reasonable course is to take a two pronged approach. Large municipalities need long term plans to get them off of the Colorado river water supply. If this means paying for expensive desalination plants then that’s what they need to do. Meanwhile farming needs to be managed. Water heavy crops and non food bearing crops need to be cut back or eliminated in some situations. Ranching also needs to be cut back in places where water use is high. 
  Kicking the can down the roads means one day both farmers and city goers will turn their taps on and nothing will come out. >
  
  No one needs to get off the Colorado river supply, they just need to address the issue
  Southern Nevada gained 750,000 new people in 20 years but currently uses 26 billion gallons of water less
  Arizona has attempted and succeeded to reclaim and reuse water and use less in general
  California has grown almonds and ships alfalfa and other water intensive crops overseas so that they can make a profit, and LA only reclaims 2% of their water.
  All thats needed is California to actually grow the fuck up and address the situation instead of beign a dumbass and ignoring it for short-term gain >
  
  The river is shrinking and the aquifers are empty. Climate is changing and it is only getting worse. Crops are part of the problem, but what’s needed long term is to stop using ground and river water at an unsustainable rate. Not investing in solutions that add to the water supply as a whole is not going to work long term. >
  
  Reduce, reuse, recycle. Cities that care to address situations reduse and reuse, and reduce usage on useless shit like crops. But sure, tell people they have to relocate and mass exodus locations because California and people like you want their almonds and Saudia Arabian water moneh
  You are genuinely ignorant if you think investing in reducing water consumption, reusing water, and recycling it is stupid and useless. Like you dont grasp basic conservationism. No, draining the water from oceans and increasing salt concentrations through byproduct waste and insane energy consumption isn't a magic cureall solution. >
  
  No, I didn’t say relocate. I said replace supply. Reduce reuse recycle doesn’t replace supply. >
  
  Replace the supply through what?? Either you're talking about desalination, or magically making water, and neither are realistic or suistanable. Please genuinely educste yourself on massively important issues like this instead of living in your own imaginatiom
  You say "we need to stop using water at an unsustainable rate"
  I say "we are, people are reusing and drastically reducing water they use, see  Las Vegas that gained 750,000 people but uses 21 billion gallons less per year"
  You say "we need to create more water"
  ??? >
  
  So just keep pulling the water out of the river until it dries up because the climate has made it and population growth unsustainable? Desalination is super expensive, but so is running out of water. >
  
  You say "we need to stop using water at an unsustainable rate"
  I say "we are, people are reusing and drastically reducing water they use, see Las Vegas that gained 750,000 people but uses 21 billion gallons less per year"
  You say "we need to create more water"
  ??? 
  But yeah, keep up your dream of desalination, whoch is god awful for the environment because it changes solute concentration in the ocean and only a short term solution >
  
  So what you’re saying is that somehow, with climate change, ever growing population centres, and a shrinking Colorado river that somehow water might just appear out of nowhere? That if people reduce enough and conserve enough that somehow, the river can continue to accept growing demand on its use year after year forever? >
  
  No, I'm saying places should and ARE addressing the problem, like las vegas that uses FAR  less water OVERALL with a 750,000 population GROWTH.
  Dont grow water intensive crops in the desert, reuse your water, and you address the fucking problem
  Your "solution" is the exact same shit that put us in this situation. "Oh beef is expensive, we need to increase the supply instead of treasuring and sustaining the population we have. Wagh wagh why are my other resources dwindling
  I'm sorry if turning oceans toxic to most autotrophs (the things besides trees that make respire in carbon dioxide and out oxygen) isnt the fucking solution to lifes problems, and it requires giving up the excess that our greedy society is built on. But yeah, keep building that greed and see where it gets you >
  
  Get rid of all the fucking lawns and just go back to clover, the whole lawn industry was created because some chemical company figured out how to kill broad leaf plants. >
  
  If they actually proposed this — and I have to wonder if this lunatic idea didn’t spring forth from the confused mind of some youthful ding dong — then I suspect California will come after the water in Lake Tahoe at some point. >
  
  This might sounds like a dumb question but...why wouldnt they use water from lake tahoe? >
  
  Well, Nevada owns half of it for starters and they wouldn't be too happy. >
  
  Southern CA should be cutoff considering they’re not (really) in the Colorado River basin. >
  
  Closing out cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas makes a lot of sense, given the future water situation out here. They should really be largely emptied out over the next few years, except for people who need to be there for mineral extraction etc. It's unbelievably foolish to have that many people living somewhere with no reliable local water source. >
  
  Nevada is granted, and survives upon, a tiny fraction of the river's water, per the Colorado River Compact. I don't think they should be first on the chopping block.
  By contrast, the Imperial Irrigation District alone in California is entitled to more than 8 times as much Colorado River water as the entire state of Nevada. >
  
  We HAVE to keep the water on in California.  
  …or else they’ll move out here >
  
  Considering CA grows a great deal of US produce and AZ produces snowbirds and MAGA, i don’t see the problem here >
  
  Other states produce the snowbirds who COME to Arizona.  And despite the MAGA noise we did go for Biden and had two Democratic US senators until Sinema jumped ship.  And no, we don't know what the hell she's on either. >
  
  "And that's how the US water wars began." >
  
  Southwest desert cities need to start discussing piping seawater inland and desalinating it. >
  
  California already has over 10 desalination plants >
  
  And needs 20 more. >
  
  Good thing they keep approving them then >
  
  Capitalism: Corner the market on something people absolutely require to exist and then sell it to the highest bidder. >
  
  i mean, california has appropriate climates for basically every crop whereas most of arizona and nevada probably shouldn't be inhabited at all, much less become a major crop growing region. makes sense to me. >
  
  Most of Arizona and Nevada isn't inhabited. >
  
  Fucking Arizona- they have no legal claim to it and they're building cities and farms in the desert.
  Just Google "Arizona Golf Courses" if you want to have a good idea of how the state allocates their water usage. >
  
  When you think of how much fresh water is used to just flush a toilet instead of growing food I tend to agree that cities can be made much more efficient and are very wasteful. >
  
  1.1 gallons of water per almond.
  1.6 gallons per flush.
  One handful of almonds is a week's worth of toilet flushes. >
  
  Also that ~1 gallon used to flush is like 90% reclaimed and purified in Phoenix and Las Vegas >
  
  What we need to do is start pumping ocean water into the Salton Sea and desalinating it.  This solves all the water issues in the south west. >
  
  This is honestly a better idea in this thread than most people are putting forth. 
  In an ideal world, we would reduce consumption. The problem is we don’t live in a ideal world and getting the populace to change or pivot their consumption is extremely difficult.. Agriculture exists in this part of the country because of the demands the country puts on it. So in my humble opinion we will not reduce consumption, so the problem becomes how to bring in more water, for the least amount of ecological damage as possible to meet that demand.
  Desalination brings about its own problems, like energy consumption and brine return into the ocean. However changing the location solves a lot of that problem.
  The Salton sea is an almost perfect site. It’s man made and basically compromised environmentally already. It’s a basin, so you can have long term storage, and it’s almost geographically centralized to the areas that need water. You would be left with a long term storage of brine, which might even have its own industrial uses. Perfect spot for an alternative energy source like solar to power it.
  It would take an incredible feat of engineering to do something on the scale that would have an impact, but it isn’t a bad starting point. >
  
  Cant we just ration play the water ration card here and allow for certain water intensive crops to be grow when the water level hits a certain level? or just every other year or something? Feels like the drought could be alleviated by just giving the river a dam break for a year or two >
  
  Colorado River water should not be diverted from its drainage basin.  It's barely a trickle, if it manages to reach Mexico at all. >
  
  I think we are all screwed if we don’t get our own homes in order. >
  
  We need more desalination plants and to invest in that technology >
  
  Trying to make the southwest go the way of the Salton Sea