If residential = 10% of overall water use

[notherhalo]

Are the millions of dollars spent telling people to save water a tactic to mask the real culprits (agricultural inefficiency)?

 

 

[maximus p]

Are the millions of dollars spent telling people to save water a tactic to mask the real culprits (agricultural inefficiency)?

yes

[gotbeer]

Are the millions of dollars spent telling people to save water a tactic to mask the real culprits (agricultural inefficiency)?

 

Used to be 20% a few months ago.  

 

But per agriculture.  Just like that house in Bel Air that uses 1000 gallons an hour, I'm sure there are those that suck.  And there are most who water quite efficiently.  

 

Although, I have noticed that in state produce has been sucking recently.  

[wopphil]

The water thing is a joke. Jerry Brown and the libs who run the state haven't done a damn thing to help fix the problem.

[deepdrive]

What do you want him to do, pee out of the window when he's flying?

 

Cause Jerry would probably do that.

Edited October 31, 2015 by deepdrive

[nate]

They have cut agricultural use of water by 40% and they actually put some co-op owners in jail for stealing water.

 

Biggest problem is so many morons in CA that refuse to cut water because they don't think it is a big deal.

[wopphil]

Here is an idea: build infrastructure that captures storm water instead of sending it to the ocean. Build a few dams (of course, the dems would never go for that, it would upset their friends in the Sierra Club). Stop wasting so much water on preserving the delta smelt.

[nate]

Sure phil.  You volunteer the 5% tax increase it would take to build.

[wopphil]

Sure phil. You volunteer the 5% tax increase it would take to build.

Jerry and his dems see fit to spend $60,000,000,000 on a train. Democrat priorities, I guess. Can't we use that money for something we need more - like water?

Edited November 1, 2015 by wopphil

[Tank]

in a curious development, my front lawn is nice and green even though we've cut back watering to just twice a week. got a few small dead spots, but far fewer than i expected. i always figure that our rain is loaded with all kinds of nutrients for plant life.

[nate]

Jerry and his dems see fit to spend $60,000,000,000 on a train. Democrat priorities, I guess. Can't we use that money for something we need more - like water?

Because that money can easily be shifted elsewhere. Got it.

[Glen]

What rainwater?

[gotbeer]

in a curious development, my front lawn is nice and green even though we've cut back watering to just twice a week. got a few small dead spots, but far fewer than i expected. i always figure that our rain is loaded with all kinds of nutrients for plant life.

 

There was a apricot farmer in Northern California that was commenting on watering practices.  He was saying that on his farm, he cut down watering considerably on his farm.  The interesting thing he found out about this was that the apricot's were smaller.  But he said that those apricots were fuller in flavor.  

 

He pretty much said that consumers equate bigger with better in produce.  And to get bigger, you need to water more.  But in things like fruit, bigger isn't better.  

[deepdrive]

Am I the only one or does anyone else here want to just go to Wisconsin and steal Nate's water ?

 

And then, of course, just laugh as a picture is being taken of me sitting on my green lawn.

[gotbeer]

Am I the only one or does anyone else here want to just go to Wisconsin and steal Nate's water ?

 

And then, of course, just laugh as a picture is being taken of me sitting on my green lawn.

 

It would mean I would have to go to Wisconsin.  So no.  

 

But if he has another tv for sale........And yes Nate it still works.

[JAHV76]

Capt. Kirk is on it.

http://abc7.com/entertainment/william-shatner-stirs-controversy-with-$30-billion-water-pipeline-idea/676172/

[Ray McKigney]

I think we all know whose fault it is:

 

[gotbeer]

That chest hair alone takes 100 gallons to wash.

[halomatt]

There was a apricot farmer in Northern California that was commenting on watering practices.  He was saying that on his farm, he cut down watering considerably on his farm.  The interesting thing he found out about this was that the apricot's were smaller.  But he said that those apricots were fuller in flavor.  

 

He pretty much said that consumers equate bigger with better in produce.  And to get bigger, you need to water more.  But in things like fruit, bigger isn't better.  

Dear Farmer,

 

No shit. 

 

Love,

Wine Drinker

 

The smaller, more concentrated fruits have always had more flavors.  Grapes are a good example.  The yield isn't greater, but the grapes are much fuller in flavors.  I'm really not a wine expert, but I'm guessing 2014 and 2015 will be good vintages.

[Tank]

I think we all know whose fault it is:

 

 

tom selleck, usc supporter, water abuser.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Tank

[gotbeer]

Dear Farmer,

 

No shit. 

 

Love,

Wine Drinker

 

The smaller, more concentrated fruits have always had more flavors.  Grapes are a good example.  The yield isn't greater, but the grapes are much fuller in flavors.  I'm really not a wine expert, but I'm guessing 2014 and 2015 will be good vintages.

 

Yes, but next time you go to the grocery store.  Will you buy the smaller fruit and vegetables, or the larger ones?  Especially when say the price is 5 for $1 (although not much seems to be 5 for $1 anymore)?  My guess is, most people, including wine drinkers, would chose the larger ones.  

 

The apricot farmer actually had to rename his apricots to petite apricots, because people would not buy the smaller ones.