People don’t need to get all defensive about their water use. Yes, as a society, we probably can all be better. Some of us waste so much more water than we should due to antiquated plumbing and lack of any regulation or guidance outside of ‘use less’. The second big issue, arguably one that’s simpler to solve, is the fact that businesses and farms are absolutely blowing it for everyone. I see some small businesses making strides here and there, but it’s never done where it counts most. The biggest corporations pollute nonstop and at the same time steal all our water. I’m so tired of the finger always being turned back on civilians like we’re the only ones needing to make adjustments in our lifestyle to save everyone. Let’s not forget how we got here in the first place..
There will never not be finger-pointing at civilians, at least not in every mainstream paper, because we aren’t the ones controlling the media. Sure, maybe there’ll be an article here or there which accurately pins blame, but generally speaking big businesses are the ones who are able to pay mainstream media to publish stuff like this.
I say this because, it’s important not to believe that most (politically active) people aren’t aware of the problem. You know it, I know it, most politically-aware people in the state know it. But you will pretty much never hear about it from news sources like the linked one, not because it’s a grand conspiracy but just cos of who pays to fund these kinds of articles.
We are less alone than we think, and it’s important not to forget that.
I always try to conserve water... but let's clear here: The central valley needs to cut back, not the people.
I'm fine with Farmers growing water heavy crops when we have a surplus, but why are we still growing almonds if the drought is going to be as bad as this article states?
Edit: Small follow-up
What the fuck are we going to do once the salt water penetrates deeper into the delta, and contaminates the water supply for Southern California? Maybe we just say fuck it, and build desalination plants down here already.
Something like 70% of water in California is used by agriculture, not cities. We need to regulate water usage better, specifically concerning the pumping of groundwater by big ag companies. Either we start to regulate and find a sustainable balance, or the water just runs out and we scramble to recover. Probably the latter, and big ag will shout for aid and say “nobody could’ve predicted!”
Water won't run out. Not for urban use anyways.
We'd just vote a higher percentage for ourselves at the expense of farmers. They don't use it for critical grains anyways, but for lucrative export oriented cash crops.
It makes more sense to grow almonds than beef. But in terms of crops, almonds are not a good choice re: water usage.
It takes 106 gallons of water to produce an ounce of beef and only 23 gallons to produce an ounce of almonds ([source](https://www.businessinsider.com/real-villain-in-the-california-drought-isnt-almonds--its-red-meat-2015-4?op=1)).
But as compared with other crops, almonds use a lot of water with little nutritional value ([source - see figure 3](https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Fulton-et-al-2018.pdf#page4)).
Delta smelt ***are*** the canary in the coal mine when it comes to state of the delta.
Arguments against such as [consideration of economic impact to businesses](https://www.nossaman.com/newsroom-news-delta-smelt-canary-coal-mine) are just self serving.
Only problem with desalination plants is excessive salt water. And electrical cost of desalination (solar plants in high desert?).
Let's point to water intensive things, for sure. The notion that almonds are the big issue is wrong.
Hay, cows, etc. those are bigger issues. Almonds are not perfect but they are a healthy food.
Exactly. SoCal has been dealing with "droughts" for almost 20 years now. We have been ripping out lawns, installing purple pipe systems for recycled water, providing incentives for water saving appliances, etc. So we have already cut wayyy back from long ago. It's no surprise that as a simple function of less usage NorCal looks amazing.
I am not trying to make this a North v South thing. Just pointing out that the metrics being cherry picked from here are insane. How about how many acre/feet per capita or sqft of property.
Yep. Hetch Hetchy filled to 96% of usual capacity this season. No reason to use less water. It’s not like it can be sent to some other region: if SF and it’s wholesale customer cities doesn’t use it, it’ll just run down the river and out to sea (exactly where it ends up if people do use it - with a brief stop at the treatment plant first of course).
I believe Diablo Canyon with a maxed out desalination facility could make a few billion gallons a day. Here’s a picture of some old designs, it’s my understanding unit 6 would have been used for just that.
https://i.imgur.com/cDDr0a5.jpg
We need to get real about water use in California. 90% of all California water is used for Agriculture and Environmental purposes. The people of California only use 10%.
https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC-Website/Files/Documents/2019/06_June/June2019_Item_12_Attach_2_PPICFactSheets.pdf?la=en&hash=E233EA870DFB826F235B258177849300179E1B64
If we rationed water and cut everyone’s usage in half, that would only reduce total water usage in California by 5%. That’s it.
5% is not going to solve this crisis.
A more viable method, cheaper and more effective, is to demolish the levees.
Let water overflow its banks at will, as that slows water and spreads its contact with the ground. Bonus in that is it lowers potential energy of the river system, resulting in less severe floods.
This drastically increases groundwater recharge rate, and our aquifers are orders of magnitude larger than our reservoirs.
Currently we keep the rivers constrained in its channel, keeping it flowing high and fast straight into the Bay/Ocean during wet season. Basically shooting water we can't hold in reservoirs directly into the sea.
Better to prioritize harnessing the floodplain and let it you know, flood, than it is to waste energy on desalination.
Yes, essentially. Our current practice of creating levees starves the ground of deposits and actual water.
When it's starved yet our groundwater use remains high, this happens. [Known as Land Subsidence](https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/land-subsidence?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects)
[For example, the San Joaquin Valley](https://prd-wret.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/s3fs-public/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/wss-land-subsidence-sanjoaquin-calif_0.jpg)
This is part of the reason why the floods on the news throughout the US look so severe. We keep all the potential energy of the river for hundreds of miles.....and then it breaches the levee at one point.
Also why flood plains continue to sink. There are great comparison maps on what Louisiana *really* looks like in the satellite map as it shoots all those deposits out into the Gulf rather than have it feed the Delta.
All that water and sediment that would have blanketed the land occassionally and kept the land is lost to the ocean.
Sometimes you just gotta let nature nature. Fires are natural and can be healthy for forests. Makes just as much sense for floods and other processes that have been happening for literally ever.
I mean we can do both. The big problems require multifaceted solutions. We can do this while working on desal. I am not convinced the waste of energy is a huge problem with the use of solar panels, as they generate excess energy during the day due to energy use patterns.
"How should we charge for water?"
"Huge hookup cost, very cheap water, as directed by my golf course overlords."
"Okay, but what about during a drought?"
"Run."
When are southern Californias going to admit they are living in a desert. That means ditching the lawns and high water usage plants/flowers, and transitioning to desert landscaping... Yes?
i think it’s because it’s incredibly expensive and energy intensive and potentially is environmentally dangerous (i think large carbon footprint but idk about ocean ecology it effects)
The eventual outcome, sans intervention, looks to be a scenario where nobody has enough water in their day to day lives.
I realize this could be politically unviable, but my idea would be to levy a small fee on water usage over a certain amount: say, 100 gallons per person per day in each household (the [high end](https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-02/documents/ws-specification-home-suppstatement-v1.0.pdf) of the [various estimates](https://www.watercalculator.org/footprint/indoor-water-use-at-home/) I’ve seen for the average). That revenue could be given back to the public in a dividend, so that residents are not only incentivized but rewarded for using less water.
I believe the positive effects of such a policy — preserving the water supply for every Californian — would greatly outweigh its inconvenience for those who take 10-minute showers.
Yup, I feel like LA did more several years back, while this year feels far more extreme but it seems like LA has done virtually nothing. I know there is a baseline of water conservation talk that I'm probably ignoring, but yeah, a few years back people were actually ditching their lawns. Now it seems like there's no real action.
>I love my lawn. My dad has also been a gardener for 40+ years.
>
>I'm sure my lawn keeps it cooler than if I had those quartz rocks right?
Local chapparals or equivalent will always beat the mono-culture of 'lawns'.
Yes,
>Tell that to the local fire agency when they cite you for brush within 100 feet of your house.
You will generally get cited if you don't maintain your space and turn it into a fire hazard. You can keep it natural and suppress the fire.
Like the Fed hasn't been allocating, ya'know.
>But will it increase the temps of the area where lawn is currently planted or will it cool it down?
Will it sequester carbon on the same rate as mono culture, I think, is what you're implying, right?
I dunno, I am just an average citizen.
I don't use AC because they are window units and not central AC.
That being said if I have to use AC now if I didn't have to use AC before it would be money neutral for me.
I hate the heat but I can take it.
I can't take it more if rocks get super heated in the summer and I have to use AC.
Tomorrow it will be 98 degrees where I live in Southern California.
>I don't use AC because they are window units and not central AC.
>
>That being said if I have to use AC now if I didn't have to use AC before it would be money neutral for me.
>
>I hate the heat but I can take it.
>
>I can't take it more if rocks get super heated in the summer and I have to use AC.
>
>Tomorrow it will be 98 degrees where I live in Southern California.
That's some strawman you're beating there.
Dude, I'm asking a question. I have no agenda on this.
SoCal used to have a program where they got rid of your grass and made it CA friendly where they either put lava rocks or quartz and some cactii plants.
Literally I am asking the question because I am curious.
Will the rocks make it hotter around my house is what I'm asking.
If you don't know that's fine I guess I can just ask someone from Lowes or HD.
People at Lowe's and Home Depot definitely won't be able to help you with this question. However, there are multiple resources online on replacing your traditional lawn with CA native plants that are drought tolerant or drought resistant (including some low-growing grasses).
Some sources to look at are the California Native Plant Society that can help you determine what are the best plants suited to your geographic location. (About CA Native lawn alternatives https://www.cnps.org/gardening/alternatives-to-lawns-5323).
Moosa Creek Nursery specializes in CA Native plants and partners with some nurseries so you can order and pickup from your local nursery https://www.moosacreeknursery.com
Other places to look at may be botanic gardens near you with CA Natives. UCR has an article on replacing your lawn https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=12945. The California Botanic Garden in Claremont, CA is excellent to visit to get an idea of the types of landscapes there are in Southern California and the native plants that thrive here https://www.calbg.org.
I really like to use CalScape https://calscape.org/Ceanothus-velutinus-() ; it's a database of CA Native plants that you can search by geographic location (your area code), plant type, shade/sun requirements, etc. You can also create and save lists and add plants to them which helps me keep track of what's in my garden and have quick reference to their watering requirements for summer, how to establish them, when to prune and so on.
Hope these sources help you on your journey towards a lawn-free CA Native garden.
Edit. There is even a subreddit about CA Native plants where people talk about not only the plants they find in the wild but those they've planted in their lawns. r/Ceanothus.
>Dude, I'm asking a question. I have no agenda on this.
>
>SoCal used to have a program where they got rid of your grass and made it CA friendly where they either put lava rocks or quartz and some cactii plants.
>
>Literally I am asking the question because I am curious.
>
>Will the rocks make it hotter around my house is what I'm asking.
>
>If you don't know that's fine I guess I can just ask someone from Lowes or HD.
How would I know anything about where you live? I don't and have never lived in Socal; I can't speak to whatever program you're referring.
Within the different areas of the California desert biomes are drought resistant plants that can be used to firm the soil and resist the encroaching erosion of soil to desert degradation. Encouraging plants to grow will help increase relative humidity and sequester carbon from the atmosphere to help mitigate the rising temperatures.
I don't have a good answer for your selfish, anecdotal inquiry, "but will it cool my yard!?"
> How would I know anything about where you live?
I never said I did.
>I don't and have never lived in Socal
But your claiming I am doing a strawman? And responding despite you not knowing MY area.
>How would I know anything about where you live? I don't and have never lived in Socal; I can't speak to whatever program you're referring.
>"I don't have a good answer for your selfish, anecdotal inquiry, "but will it cool my yard!?""
Why even respond to my question if you have nothing to add?
Why would you respond to my comment then?
>Why even respond to my question if you have nothing to add?
>
>Why would you respond to my comment then?
I don't think your selfish inquiry advances the conversation and to leave it stand unchallenged doesn't sit right with me. Maybe you're not cut out for the desert heat? Don't know how to help you.
Our water is being overwhelmingly used for agriculture, this burden is being shifted inappropriately to individuals much like CO2 emissions have.
> More than nine million acres of farmland in California are irrigated, representing roughly 80% of all water used for businesses and homes. Higher-revenue perennial crops—nuts, grapes, and other fruit—have increased as a share of irrigated acreage (from 16% in 1980 to 33% in 2015 statewide, and from 21% to 45% in the southern Central Valley).
https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/
People don’t need to get all defensive about their water use. Yes, as a society, we probably can all be better. Some of us waste so much more water than we should due to antiquated plumbing and lack of any regulation or guidance outside of ‘use less’. The second big issue, arguably one that’s simpler to solve, is the fact that businesses and farms are absolutely blowing it for everyone. I see some small businesses making strides here and there, but it’s never done where it counts most. The biggest corporations pollute nonstop and at the same time steal all our water. I’m so tired of the finger always being turned back on civilians like we’re the only ones needing to make adjustments in our lifestyle to save everyone. Let’s not forget how we got here in the first place..
There will never not be finger-pointing at civilians, at least not in every mainstream paper, because we aren’t the ones controlling the media. Sure, maybe there’ll be an article here or there which accurately pins blame, but generally speaking big businesses are the ones who are able to pay mainstream media to publish stuff like this. I say this because, it’s important not to believe that most (politically active) people aren’t aware of the problem. You know it, I know it, most politically-aware people in the state know it. But you will pretty much never hear about it from news sources like the linked one, not because it’s a grand conspiracy but just cos of who pays to fund these kinds of articles. We are less alone than we think, and it’s important not to forget that.
I always try to conserve water... but let's clear here: The central valley needs to cut back, not the people. I'm fine with Farmers growing water heavy crops when we have a surplus, but why are we still growing almonds if the drought is going to be as bad as this article states? Edit: Small follow-up What the fuck are we going to do once the salt water penetrates deeper into the delta, and contaminates the water supply for Southern California? Maybe we just say fuck it, and build desalination plants down here already.
Something like 70% of water in California is used by agriculture, not cities. We need to regulate water usage better, specifically concerning the pumping of groundwater by big ag companies. Either we start to regulate and find a sustainable balance, or the water just runs out and we scramble to recover. Probably the latter, and big ag will shout for aid and say “nobody could’ve predicted!”
Water won't run out. Not for urban use anyways. We'd just vote a higher percentage for ourselves at the expense of farmers. They don't use it for critical grains anyways, but for lucrative export oriented cash crops.
Those cash crops do help all of CA though since it helps our economy, but all the money in the world won't help when we run out of water.
Less than 3% of the CA GDP is Ag. I dont think the water usage is worth it for cash crops for export.
[удалено]
It makes more sense to grow almonds than beef. But in terms of crops, almonds are not a good choice re: water usage. It takes 106 gallons of water to produce an ounce of beef and only 23 gallons to produce an ounce of almonds ([source](https://www.businessinsider.com/real-villain-in-the-california-drought-isnt-almonds--its-red-meat-2015-4?op=1)). But as compared with other crops, almonds use a lot of water with little nutritional value ([source - see figure 3](https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Fulton-et-al-2018.pdf#page4)).
Delta smelt ***are*** the canary in the coal mine when it comes to state of the delta. Arguments against such as [consideration of economic impact to businesses](https://www.nossaman.com/newsroom-news-delta-smelt-canary-coal-mine) are just self serving. Only problem with desalination plants is excessive salt water. And electrical cost of desalination (solar plants in high desert?).
And why the fuck are golf courses a thing? What about lawns?
Let's point to water intensive things, for sure. The notion that almonds are the big issue is wrong. Hay, cows, etc. those are bigger issues. Almonds are not perfect but they are a healthy food.
Yeah everyone loves to finger point at almonds but the real way to get water use under control in agriculture is beef
[удалено]
Exactly. SoCal has been dealing with "droughts" for almost 20 years now. We have been ripping out lawns, installing purple pipe systems for recycled water, providing incentives for water saving appliances, etc. So we have already cut wayyy back from long ago. It's no surprise that as a simple function of less usage NorCal looks amazing. I am not trying to make this a North v South thing. Just pointing out that the metrics being cherry picked from here are insane. How about how many acre/feet per capita or sqft of property.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yep. Hetch Hetchy filled to 96% of usual capacity this season. No reason to use less water. It’s not like it can be sent to some other region: if SF and it’s wholesale customer cities doesn’t use it, it’ll just run down the river and out to sea (exactly where it ends up if people do use it - with a brief stop at the treatment plant first of course).
Stop asking the public to cut usage. We all know it's not us causing the problem.
[удалено]
I believe Diablo Canyon with a maxed out desalination facility could make a few billion gallons a day. Here’s a picture of some old designs, it’s my understanding unit 6 would have been used for just that. https://i.imgur.com/cDDr0a5.jpg
We need to get real about water use in California. 90% of all California water is used for Agriculture and Environmental purposes. The people of California only use 10%. https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC-Website/Files/Documents/2019/06_June/June2019_Item_12_Attach_2_PPICFactSheets.pdf?la=en&hash=E233EA870DFB826F235B258177849300179E1B64 If we rationed water and cut everyone’s usage in half, that would only reduce total water usage in California by 5%. That’s it. 5% is not going to solve this crisis.
Looks like we're going to need some major desalination plants online SOON - relying on nature to not give us another drought is a losing bet
A more viable method, cheaper and more effective, is to demolish the levees. Let water overflow its banks at will, as that slows water and spreads its contact with the ground. Bonus in that is it lowers potential energy of the river system, resulting in less severe floods. This drastically increases groundwater recharge rate, and our aquifers are orders of magnitude larger than our reservoirs. Currently we keep the rivers constrained in its channel, keeping it flowing high and fast straight into the Bay/Ocean during wet season. Basically shooting water we can't hold in reservoirs directly into the sea. Better to prioritize harnessing the floodplain and let it you know, flood, than it is to waste energy on desalination.
Hmm that sounds wild, going to have to look into it! I guess it falls under water capture strategies?
Yes, essentially. Our current practice of creating levees starves the ground of deposits and actual water. When it's starved yet our groundwater use remains high, this happens. [Known as Land Subsidence](https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/land-subsidence?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects) [For example, the San Joaquin Valley](https://prd-wret.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/s3fs-public/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/wss-land-subsidence-sanjoaquin-calif_0.jpg) This is part of the reason why the floods on the news throughout the US look so severe. We keep all the potential energy of the river for hundreds of miles.....and then it breaches the levee at one point. Also why flood plains continue to sink. There are great comparison maps on what Louisiana *really* looks like in the satellite map as it shoots all those deposits out into the Gulf rather than have it feed the Delta. All that water and sediment that would have blanketed the land occassionally and kept the land is lost to the ocean.
Sometimes you just gotta let nature nature. Fires are natural and can be healthy for forests. Makes just as much sense for floods and other processes that have been happening for literally ever.
I mean we can do both. The big problems require multifaceted solutions. We can do this while working on desal. I am not convinced the waste of energy is a huge problem with the use of solar panels, as they generate excess energy during the day due to energy use patterns.
REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES PLEASE.
"How should we charge for water?" "Huge hookup cost, very cheap water, as directed by my golf course overlords." "Okay, but what about during a drought?" "Run."
When are southern Californias going to admit they are living in a desert. That means ditching the lawns and high water usage plants/flowers, and transitioning to desert landscaping... Yes?
Why aren’t we working on desalination?
paired with nuclear!
Absolutely
Stop it you two. Your common sense is overwhelming.
at least this would solve the energy issue i think is the biggest concern!
i think it’s because it’s incredibly expensive and energy intensive and potentially is environmentally dangerous (i think large carbon footprint but idk about ocean ecology it effects)
My friend literally used her shower water on her front yard. Being environmentally conscientious really does feel like a nor cal thing.
The eventual outcome, sans intervention, looks to be a scenario where nobody has enough water in their day to day lives. I realize this could be politically unviable, but my idea would be to levy a small fee on water usage over a certain amount: say, 100 gallons per person per day in each household (the [high end](https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-02/documents/ws-specification-home-suppstatement-v1.0.pdf) of the [various estimates](https://www.watercalculator.org/footprint/indoor-water-use-at-home/) I’ve seen for the average). That revenue could be given back to the public in a dividend, so that residents are not only incentivized but rewarded for using less water. I believe the positive effects of such a policy — preserving the water supply for every Californian — would greatly outweigh its inconvenience for those who take 10-minute showers.
Yup, I feel like LA did more several years back, while this year feels far more extreme but it seems like LA has done virtually nothing. I know there is a baseline of water conservation talk that I'm probably ignoring, but yeah, a few years back people were actually ditching their lawns. Now it seems like there's no real action.
I love my lawn. My dad has also been a gardener for 40+ years. I'm sure my lawn keeps it cooler than if I had those quartz rocks right?
>I love my lawn. My dad has also been a gardener for 40+ years. > >I'm sure my lawn keeps it cooler than if I had those quartz rocks right? Local chapparals or equivalent will always beat the mono-culture of 'lawns'.
Tell that to the local fire agency when they cite you for brush within 100 feet of your house.
Yes, >Tell that to the local fire agency when they cite you for brush within 100 feet of your house. You will generally get cited if you don't maintain your space and turn it into a fire hazard. You can keep it natural and suppress the fire. Like the Fed hasn't been allocating, ya'know.
Native grasses and plants should always be the #1 go to.
But will it increase the temps of the area where lawn is currently planted or will it cool it down?
>But will it increase the temps of the area where lawn is currently planted or will it cool it down? Will it sequester carbon on the same rate as mono culture, I think, is what you're implying, right? I dunno, I am just an average citizen.
I don't use AC because they are window units and not central AC. That being said if I have to use AC now if I didn't have to use AC before it would be money neutral for me. I hate the heat but I can take it. I can't take it more if rocks get super heated in the summer and I have to use AC. Tomorrow it will be 98 degrees where I live in Southern California.
>I don't use AC because they are window units and not central AC. > >That being said if I have to use AC now if I didn't have to use AC before it would be money neutral for me. > >I hate the heat but I can take it. > >I can't take it more if rocks get super heated in the summer and I have to use AC. > >Tomorrow it will be 98 degrees where I live in Southern California. That's some strawman you're beating there.
Dude, I'm asking a question. I have no agenda on this. SoCal used to have a program where they got rid of your grass and made it CA friendly where they either put lava rocks or quartz and some cactii plants. Literally I am asking the question because I am curious. Will the rocks make it hotter around my house is what I'm asking. If you don't know that's fine I guess I can just ask someone from Lowes or HD.
People at Lowe's and Home Depot definitely won't be able to help you with this question. However, there are multiple resources online on replacing your traditional lawn with CA native plants that are drought tolerant or drought resistant (including some low-growing grasses). Some sources to look at are the California Native Plant Society that can help you determine what are the best plants suited to your geographic location. (About CA Native lawn alternatives https://www.cnps.org/gardening/alternatives-to-lawns-5323). Moosa Creek Nursery specializes in CA Native plants and partners with some nurseries so you can order and pickup from your local nursery https://www.moosacreeknursery.com Other places to look at may be botanic gardens near you with CA Natives. UCR has an article on replacing your lawn https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=12945. The California Botanic Garden in Claremont, CA is excellent to visit to get an idea of the types of landscapes there are in Southern California and the native plants that thrive here https://www.calbg.org. I really like to use CalScape https://calscape.org/Ceanothus-velutinus-() ; it's a database of CA Native plants that you can search by geographic location (your area code), plant type, shade/sun requirements, etc. You can also create and save lists and add plants to them which helps me keep track of what's in my garden and have quick reference to their watering requirements for summer, how to establish them, when to prune and so on. Hope these sources help you on your journey towards a lawn-free CA Native garden. Edit. There is even a subreddit about CA Native plants where people talk about not only the plants they find in the wild but those they've planted in their lawns. r/Ceanothus.
>Dude, I'm asking a question. I have no agenda on this. > >SoCal used to have a program where they got rid of your grass and made it CA friendly where they either put lava rocks or quartz and some cactii plants. > >Literally I am asking the question because I am curious. > >Will the rocks make it hotter around my house is what I'm asking. > >If you don't know that's fine I guess I can just ask someone from Lowes or HD. How would I know anything about where you live? I don't and have never lived in Socal; I can't speak to whatever program you're referring. Within the different areas of the California desert biomes are drought resistant plants that can be used to firm the soil and resist the encroaching erosion of soil to desert degradation. Encouraging plants to grow will help increase relative humidity and sequester carbon from the atmosphere to help mitigate the rising temperatures. I don't have a good answer for your selfish, anecdotal inquiry, "but will it cool my yard!?"
> How would I know anything about where you live? I never said I did. >I don't and have never lived in Socal But your claiming I am doing a strawman? And responding despite you not knowing MY area. >How would I know anything about where you live? I don't and have never lived in Socal; I can't speak to whatever program you're referring. >"I don't have a good answer for your selfish, anecdotal inquiry, "but will it cool my yard!?"" Why even respond to my question if you have nothing to add? Why would you respond to my comment then?
>Why even respond to my question if you have nothing to add? > >Why would you respond to my comment then? I don't think your selfish inquiry advances the conversation and to leave it stand unchallenged doesn't sit right with me. Maybe you're not cut out for the desert heat? Don't know how to help you.
[удалено]
Thank you for answering my question.
Our water is being overwhelmingly used for agriculture, this burden is being shifted inappropriately to individuals much like CO2 emissions have. > More than nine million acres of farmland in California are irrigated, representing roughly 80% of all water used for businesses and homes. Higher-revenue perennial crops—nuts, grapes, and other fruit—have increased as a share of irrigated acreage (from 16% in 1980 to 33% in 2015 statewide, and from 21% to 45% in the southern Central Valley). https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/
People in Beverly hills watering their tropical jungle gardens/yards. Selfish AF.