CDZ California water use by type?

[Toronado3800]

Somehow on the tree message boards I am debating California water usage by type, agriculture, residential, other.

Seems like the USGS thinks about 60 % was agriculture. The Washington Post 80 % plus. Some people on the forum 90 %.

Anyone have a good source for how it is broken down?

 

[Manonthestreet]

Where does ethanol fit in?

 

[Moonglow]

.

 

[320 Years of History]

Somehow on the tree message boards I am debating California water usage by type, agriculture, residential, other. Seems like the USGS thinks about 60 % was agriculture. The Washington Post 80 % plus. Some people on the forum 90 %. Anyone have a good source for how it is broken down?

Where does ethanol fit in?

ROTFL!!!

 

[Manonthestreet]

Somehow on the tree message boards I am debating California water usage by type, agriculture, residential, other. Seems like the USGS thinks about 60 % was agriculture. The Washington Post 80 % plus. Some people on the forum 90 %. Anyone have a good source for how it is broken down?

Where does ethanol fit in?

ROTFL!!!

Funny how UC Berkley stated 924 gallons of water may be required to produce a single liter of ethanol....much higher than rest of country....and was major contributor to water draw down

 

[320 Years of History]

Somehow on the tree message boards I am debating California water usage by type, agriculture, residential, other. Seems like the USGS thinks about 60 % was agriculture. The Washington Post 80 % plus. Some people on the forum 90 %. Anyone have a good source for how it is broken down?

Where does ethanol fit in?

ROTFL!!!

Funny how UC Berkley stated 924 gallons of water may be required to produce a single liter of ethanol....much higher than rest of country....and was major contributor to water draw down

Off Topic:
I presume you're referring to this finding reported in "The Water Footprint of California’s Energy System, 1990−2012":

The amount of water required to support California’s total energy system has changed significantly over the time period examined (Figure 3a). In 1990, the state’s total EWF was about 2.1 cubic kilometers (km3 ), whereas in 2012, it was 7.7 km3 , representing more than a 3-fold increase. Much of the increase is attributable to water consumed for ethanol production....Indeed, California’s EWF is highly sensitive to the role of ethanol (given our methods and assumptions).
​

Assuming that is indeed the study/finding to which you referred, it'd seem you already knew the role water plays in the production of ethanol in California.

• If one isn't aware of ethanol's impact on water consumption in CA, your question is odd in the context of the OP's stated topic. I think folks in the general population would not intuitively think, absent specific awareness of how ethanol is produced (or produced in CA), that ethanol would have much to do with it.
• If one is aware that CA's ethanol production activities to the degree of specificity of knowing "924 gallons of water may be required to produce a single liter of ethanol, [thus making it] a major contributor to [CA's] water draw down [sic]," why would that same person ask, "Where does ethanol fit in?" Does it not stand to reason that person already knows "where ethanol fits in," at least to some extent?

Somehow on the tree message boards I am debating California water usage by type, agriculture, residential, other. Seems like the USGS thinks about 60 % was agriculture. The Washington Post 80 % plus. Some people on the forum 90 %. Anyone have a good source for how it is broken down?

OP, you may find what you seek in the study I noted/linked above. That document references quite a number of other studies, some of which may also contain the info you seek. Another document that may be of help to you is this, "California's Water Footprint."

 

[Dekster]

Somehow on the tree message boards I am debating California water usage by type, agriculture, residential, other.

Seems like the USGS thinks about 60 % was agriculture. The Washington Post 80 % plus. Some people on the forum 90 %.

Anyone have a good source for how it is broken down?

You would need to look at their methodology. In reality, if I drag my hose out and water my garden, they don't know if the water was used for the garden or for washing clothes, so they will make assumptions. Different people studying it will make different assumptions. Some might say, well it is a residential property so it was residential use. Others might say 1/3rd of the property is related to the dwelling and 2/3rds is related to agriculture so 1/3 of the water is for dwelling and 2/3rds for agriculture

 

[320 Years of History]

if I drag my hose out and water my garden, they don't know if the water was used for the garden or for washing clothes, so they will make assumptions.

Will your neighbors or passersby report your activity to some governmental agency?

If not, yes, assumptions are about all the agency can make, but based on them, they also can send someone out to check your lawn/garden and determine if it's soaking wet, or perhaps to observe that while everyone around you and having the same type of grass has a "dead or dying" lawn and shrubbery, yours is verdant and thriving. I can't say how that'll bode for you...My guess is "not well." LOL

 

[Syriusly]

.

So Agriculture doesn't use any water in my state?

 

[HenryBHough]

California wastes far too much water keeping liberals alive.

 

[Syriusly]

Water—Who uses how much?

This is a good article on it.

 

[Syriusly]

California wastes far too much water keeping liberals alive.

Poor Henry- still hoping that most Americans in California will die.

 

[HenryBHough]

Poor Henry- still hoping that most Americans in California will die.

Nay, only wishing they'd learn to fend for themselves. Though that could be considered tantamount.

Think it through - if Californians couldn't just turn on a tap and have all the water they want. If they had to walk (no polluting motorized vehicles permitted) to a hand pump and work to get their water they'd be much more considerate of others in using it. Something conservatives (who are generally in better health and less dissipated) do with more regularity than their liberal neighbors. By observation, mind, so please don't whine after a "link".

 

[Syriusly]

Poor Henry- still hoping that most Americans in California will die.

Nay, only wishing they'd learn to fend for themselves. Though that could be considered tantamount.

Think it through - if Californians couldn't just turn on a tap and have all the water they want. If they had to walk (no polluting motorized vehicles permitted) to a hand pump and work to get their water they'd be much more considerate of others in using it. Something conservatives (who are generally in better health and less dissipated) do with more regularity than their liberal neighbors. By observation, mind, so please don't whine after a "link".

By observation, Conservatives are just as human as Liberals- and are just as likely to use- and abuse- a 'free' resource as anyone else.

The difference between us though is that you regret that most Americans who live in California continue to live.

 

[HenryBHough]

By observation, Conservatives are just as human as Liberals- and are just as likely to use- and abuse- a 'free' resource as anyone else.

The difference between us though is that you regret that most Americans who live in California continue to live.

No, not "most Americans". Only those, liberal OR conservative who refuse to have the public water to their homes turned off and walk to the village pump for a few gallons a day. But not just "Americans". All people living in California, American, Mexican nationals (legal or otherwise), Syrians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian.....I'm very, very inclusive in hoping to see environmental responsibility in action - not just talked about. California should be returned to Mother Gaia to cleanse.

Now that does come with problems. The "Agricultural" use of water is the "big spender". Now if the population were reduced there'd be fewer to work the crops so the size of the crops would have to be reduced resulting in an immediate decrease in demand for water. Yes, it would entail some sacrifice on the part of others around the country...indeed the world...through having to at least partially fend for themselves in growing things to eat. And that, of course, would be good for them. It would also have the effect of making productive use of water in other areas having excess rainfall. Removing paving to return to agrarian uses would allow absorption of rainwater and we could cut another notch in the stock of the rifle being fired in defense of the planet.

That those unwilling to do their party might perish should be no concern - we must think of the greater good, do you not agree?

 

[Agit8r]

Somehow on the tree message boards I am debating California water usage by type, agriculture, residential, other. Seems like the USGS thinks about 60 % was agriculture. The Washington Post 80 % plus. Some people on the forum 90 %. Anyone have a good source for how it is broken down?

Where does ethanol fit in?

ROTFL!!!

Funny how UC Berkley stated 924 gallons of water may be required to produce a single liter of ethanol....much higher than rest of country....and was major contributor to water draw down

Off Topic:
I presume you're referring to this finding reported in "The Water Footprint of California’s Energy System, 1990−2012":

The amount of water required to support California’s total energy system has changed significantly over the time period examined (Figure 3a). In 1990, the state’s total EWF was about 2.1 cubic kilometers (km3 ), whereas in 2012, it was 7.7 km3 , representing more than a 3-fold increase. Much of the increase is attributable to water consumed for ethanol production....Indeed, California’s EWF is highly sensitive to the role of ethanol (given our methods and assumptions).
​

Assuming that is indeed the study/finding to which you referred, it'd seem you already knew the role water plays in the production of ethanol in California.

• If one isn't aware of ethanol's impact on water consumption in CA, your question is odd in the context of the OP's stated topic. I think folks in the general population would not intuitively think, absent specific awareness of how ethanol is produced (or produced in CA), that ethanol would have much to do with it.
• If one is aware that CA's ethanol production activities to the degree of specificity of knowing "924 gallons of water may be required to produce a single liter of ethanol, [thus making it] a major contributor to [CA's] water draw down [sic]," why would that same person ask, "Where does ethanol fit in?" Does it not stand to reason that person already knows "where ethanol fits in," at least to some extent?

Somehow on the tree message boards I am debating California water usage by type, agriculture, residential, other. Seems like the USGS thinks about 60 % was agriculture. The Washington Post 80 % plus. Some people on the forum 90 %. Anyone have a good source for how it is broken down?

OP, you may find what you seek in the study I noted/linked above. That document references quite a number of other studies, some of which may also contain the info you seek. Another document that may be of help to you is this, "California's Water Footprint."

Dang. That one graphic is pretty powerful!

 

[320 Years of History]

Somehow on the tree message boards I am debating California water usage by type, agriculture, residential, other. Seems like the USGS thinks about 60 % was agriculture. The Washington Post 80 % plus. Some people on the forum 90 %. Anyone have a good source for how it is broken down?

Where does ethanol fit in?

ROTFL!!!

Funny how UC Berkley stated 924 gallons of water may be required to produce a single liter of ethanol....much higher than rest of country....and was major contributor to water draw down

Off Topic:
I presume you're referring to this finding reported in "The Water Footprint of California’s Energy System, 1990−2012":

The amount of water required to support California’s total energy system has changed significantly over the time period examined (Figure 3a). In 1990, the state’s total EWF was about 2.1 cubic kilometers (km3 ), whereas in 2012, it was 7.7 km3 , representing more than a 3-fold increase. Much of the increase is attributable to water consumed for ethanol production....Indeed, California’s EWF is highly sensitive to the role of ethanol (given our methods and assumptions).
​

Assuming that is indeed the study/finding to which you referred, it'd seem you already knew the role water plays in the production of ethanol in California.

• If one isn't aware of ethanol's impact on water consumption in CA, your question is odd in the context of the OP's stated topic. I think folks in the general population would not intuitively think, absent specific awareness of how ethanol is produced (or produced in CA), that ethanol would have much to do with it.
• If one is aware that CA's ethanol production activities to the degree of specificity of knowing "924 gallons of water may be required to produce a single liter of ethanol, [thus making it] a major contributor to [CA's] water draw down [sic]," why would that same person ask, "Where does ethanol fit in?" Does it not stand to reason that person already knows "where ethanol fits in," at least to some extent?

Somehow on the tree message boards I am debating California water usage by type, agriculture, residential, other. Seems like the USGS thinks about 60 % was agriculture. The Washington Post 80 % plus. Some people on the forum 90 %. Anyone have a good source for how it is broken down?

OP, you may find what you seek in the study I noted/linked above. That document references quite a number of other studies, some of which may also contain the info you seek. Another document that may be of help to you is this, "California's Water Footprint."

Dang. That one graphic is pretty powerful!

View attachment 79773

I guess it's a good thing South Dakota isn't experiencing the same water issues that CA is.

• State Humans Cattle
  South Dakota 844,877 3,650,000

P.S.
Apologies for the sloppy formatting...I'm feeling too lazy right now to insert a table.

 

[Dekster]

if I drag my hose out and water my garden, they don't know if the water was used for the garden or for washing clothes, so they will make assumptions.

Will your neighbors or passersby report your activity to some governmental agency?

If not, yes, assumptions are about all the agency can make, but based on them, they also can send someone out to check your lawn/garden and determine if it's soaking wet, or perhaps to observe that while everyone around you and having the same type of grass has a "dead or dying" lawn and shrubbery, yours is verdant and thriving. I can't say how that'll bode for you...My guess is "not well." LOL

Nothing in your post addresses the issue being discussed. I was commenting on the methodology of estimating who uses water for what, not water usage restrictions.

 

[320 Years of History]

if I drag my hose out and water my garden, they don't know if the water was used for the garden or for washing clothes, so they will make assumptions.

Will your neighbors or passersby report your activity to some governmental agency?

If not, yes, assumptions are about all the agency can make, but based on them, they also can send someone out to check your lawn/garden and determine if it's soaking wet, or perhaps to observe that while everyone around you and having the same type of grass has a "dead or dying" lawn and shrubbery, yours is verdant and thriving. I can't say how that'll bode for you...My guess is "not well." LOL

Nothing in your post addresses the issue being discussed. I was commenting on the methodology of estimating who uses water for what, not water usage restrictions.

You're right. I should have opened my post with the heading "off topic."