Water Conservation: Does Arizona really use less water now than it did in 1957?

[Sun Belt]

Q] Does Arizona really use less water now than it did in 1957?
A] Yes, despite the population increasing by 6 million additional people.

I came across this article. I knew it was close, but didn't realize that water usage had actually declined since the mid-century. There are other cities that have reduced their water consumption while the population continued to grow as well. Other cities and states can learn a lot in terms of water conservation from Phoenix/Arizona.

What is your city doing to reduce consumption and/or increase supply to meet demand?

Does Arizona really use less water now than it did in 1957?
Andrew Nicla, Arizona Republic
Feb. 12, 2019

Even in the midst of a historical 19-year drought in the Southwest, Arizona uses less water now than it did 62 years ago.

That may sound too good to be true, but it isn't: As the state's population has exploded, its water consumption has remained steady and even fallen.

-----

According to the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), the state used about 7.1 million acre-feet of fresh water in 1957 — a figure that was actually lower — at 7.0 million acre-feet in 2017. (An acre-foot is almost 326,000 gallons, or enough to cover a football field in nearly a foot of water.)

Meanwhile, the population of the state has increased substantially from just over 1 million in 1957 to more than 7 million in 2017, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Water demand and usage has fluctuated over the decades, climbing in the mid 70's and most recently in 2011, but overall, the average amount of water used each year has leveled out.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...57/2806899002/

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

What is your city doing to reduce consumption and/or increase supply to meet demand?

no much that i can think of.

of the 8 billion problems staring chicago in the face, water isn't one of them.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Q] Does Arizona really use less water now than it did in 1957?
A] Yes, despite the population increasing by 6 million additional people.

This was published in a Phoenix newspaper, the Arizona Republic. But ironically, I don't think Phoenix can take much of the credit. Grassy yards and other water-intensive landscaping are a LOT more common in the Phoenix metro than in the state's #2 city, Tucson. About the only grass you'll commonly see in Tucson is on golf courses using recycled water. Not so in Phoenix.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

This was published in a Phoenix newspaper, the Arizona Republic. But ironically, I don't think Phoenix can take much of the credit. Grassy yards and other water-intensive landscaping are a LOT more common in the Phoenix metro than in the state's #2 city, Tucson. About the only grass you'll commonly see in Tucson is on golf courses using recycled water. Not so in Phoenix.

True on the relative amount of landscaping between the two cities. But Phoenix can take "credit" for the reduction, in that (according to my understanding) the reduction in water usage is largely down to urban sprawl replacing farms and agriculture, which decreases the water usage despite the increase in population. So I don't know if this particular stat is really down to Phoenix having good water conservation policies (although Phoenix and Arizona do generally have good such policies). And I don't know that it's necessarily something to be proud of--that we covered the alluvial soil of the Salt River Valley with single-family homes as far as the eye can see. But with respect to this particular issue, it does have the fringe benefit of reducing water consumption.

[Sun Belt]

I would think that Denver, Boise, Dallas, OKC, ABQ, SLC would be interested.

Chicago, not so much. Just suck some water from Lake Michigan and allow California to build a pipeline so we can grow to 60 million people.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Just suck some water from Lake Michigan and allow California to build a pipeline so we can grow to 60 million people.

Scr*w 'em. We're hauling icebergs from Antarctica. They're bigger than Chicago (or maybe even Lake Michigan).

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Scr*w 'em. We're hauling icebergs from Antarctica. They're bigger than Chicago (or maybe even Lake Michigan).

Well, great.

Wait, what about Global Warming? Those icebergs won't stand a chance with the Santa Anas and the Nuevo Sahara that will bury Phoenix in sand and stuff.

E] That's a joke people. Phoenix will be there for the next thousand years, just like it was for the previous thousand years. Also there isn't any sand there [except in river beds], just extremely fertile silt and some rocky materials near mountains ranges.

[twister244]

Folks....... All you need to do is cloud seed your way out of this problem..... duh.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Q] Does Arizona really use less water now than it did in 1957?
A] Yes, despite the population increasing by 6 million additional people.

I came across this article. I knew it was close, but didn't realize that water usage had actually declined since the mid-century. There are other cities that have reduced their water consumption while the population continued to grow as well. Other cities and states can learn a lot in terms of water conservation from Phoenix/Arizona.

What is your city doing to reduce consumption and/or increase supply to meet demand?

Does Arizona really use less water now than it did in 1957?
Andrew Nicla, Arizona Republic
Feb. 12, 2019


https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...57/2806899002/

People dont realize that the VAST majority (like 90%) of development in Arizona has occured on previous agricultural land not in open desert.

This is what the edge of the Metro Sprawl looks like most of the time: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4274...!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Notice the farms all around the Cardinals stadium with the city buildings far in the distance.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Scr*w 'em. We're hauling icebergs from Antarctica. They're bigger than Chicago (or maybe even Lake Michigan).

Both wrong, We'll haul giant chunks of Ice in from the rings of Saturn.

Wait, what about Global Warming? Those icebergs won't stand a chance with the Santa Anas and the Nuevo Sahara that will bury Phoenix in sand and stuff.

Its actually Ironically possible for Arizona to get more rain and snow due to global warming, El Nino like this year will be more common which brings more moisture via Snow and rain, the higher moisture helps moderate the Summer Temps during the Monsoon.

So while it might suck for the Maldives, im happy so far.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

This was published in a Phoenix newspaper, the Arizona Republic. But ironically, I don't think Phoenix can take much of the credit. Grassy yards and other water-intensive landscaping are a LOT more common in the Phoenix metro than in the state's #2 city, Tucson. About the only grass you'll commonly see in Tucson is on golf courses using recycled water. Not so in Phoenix.

Those Grassy yards use a fraction of the water it took to Grow letuce, cotton and oranges that were there before; https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stat...?state=ARIZONA

[saybanana]

California's potable water:
80% for agriculture (crops, dairy industry etc)
20% for residential, commercial, industrial (40 million Californians, their lawns, their pools, tens of millions of visitors)
https://www.ppic.org/publication/wat...in-california/


Trying to improve farming techniques or getting rid of most water intensive crops would increase the amount for the 20%. You can maybe double the population of California to 80 million with the taking 20% from the 80.

Arizona, despite increasing its population from 1 million to 7 million, 69% is used for agriculture and 31% for everyone else.
http://arizonaexperience.org/people/...es-and-sources

Does CA and AZ need to grow that much crops despite being two states with not much rainfall and half of the year only getting rain? Can other states with reliable water sources just grow more food?

[Sun Belt]

^Your post made me remember about an article I read this week in the L.A. Times:

California wastes most of its rainwater, which simply goes down the drain
L.A. Times
HANNAH FRY and ALEJANDRA REYES-VELARDE
2/20/2019

California’s wet winter has dumped an estimated 18 trillion gallons of rain in February alone. But much of it is simply going down the drain.
In what has become a source of much concern in a state prone to droughts and water shortages, the vast majority of rainwater in urban areas flows into storm drains and is eventually lost to the Pacific Ocean.

“When you look at the Los Angeles River being between 50% and 70% full during a storm, you realize that more water is running down the river into the ocean than what Los Angeles would use in close to a year,” said Mark Gold, associate vice chancellor for environment and sustainability at UCLA. “What a waste of water supply.”

For Southern California, this is shaping up to be the wettest winter in years — serving as a reminder of how much water is wasted when the skies open up.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...220-story.html

80% of the region's rainfall is diverted into channels that lead directly out to the ocean. Imagine if that water is captured and stored instead of draining out to the sea.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by saybanana

Does CA and AZ need to grow that much crops despite being two states with not much rainfall and half of the year only getting rain? Can other states with reliable water sources just grow more food?

Yes, you would think. But the Southwest has two growing seasons, so it's ideal for perishable crops like fruits and vegetables, which happen to be water-intensive. Us in the Midwest have only one growing season, so we are resigned to growing commodity crops like grains and legumes where the crops can preserve until the next year's harvest. We have millennia of irrigation techniques for addressing the water shortage in the Southwest, whereas our techniques for addressing the Midwest's wintertime deficit of sun are limited and expensive (greenhouses, basically).

That's maybe 70% of why the Southwest is such an agricultural powerhouse... the other 30% is farm subsidies that pick winners and losers and provide farmers with incentives to grow certain crops even in contradiction to natural factors like climate and soil type. These are the reason the Midwest produces far more commodity crops than America actually needs, so we're forced to put ethanol in our gas and high-fructose corn syrup in pretty much everything else.

But I would love to see regional produce get bigger. No reason Chicagoans should be eating fruits and veggies from California or Chile in the summertime when Wisconsin and Michigan are perfectly capable of growing those things. But it's always gonna be a niche market until politicians in DC get serious about reforming our insane farm policies. Right now both parties manage to agree on the farm bill every time it comes up, the only actual debate is over unrelated issues like food stamps that are jammed into the bill.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

^Your post made me remember about an article I read this week in the L.A. Times:

California wastes most of its rainwater, which simply goes down the drain

"Going down the drain" for Angelenos is keeping salmon and other fish alive for Northern Californians.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by saybanana

California's potable water:
80% for agriculture (crops, dairy industry etc)
20% for residential, commercial, industrial (40 million Californians, their lawns, their pools, tens of millions of visitors)
https://www.ppic.org/publication/wat...in-california/


Trying to improve farming techniques or getting rid of most water intensive crops would increase the amount for the 20%. You can maybe double the population of California to 80 million with the taking 20% from the 80.

Arizona, despite increasing its population from 1 million to 7 million, 69% is used for agriculture and 31% for everyone else.
http://arizonaexperience.org/people/...es-and-sources

Does CA and AZ need to grow that much crops despite being two states with not much rainfall and half of the year only getting rain? Can other states with reliable water sources just grow more food?

The US is by far the largest agricultural producer and exporter in the world. If we are talking just straight calorie need, CA and AZ could stop growing food completely.

Of course then everyone else on earth would eat a lot less citrus, vegetables, Dairy, nuts, lettuce, avocados ettc ettc.

One fun little tidbit, feed for animals is a big part of the crops we grow like corn and wheat and we developed a way to turn dead palm fronds into feed mix for pigs and cows, if they start using all the dead palm fronds we could reduce feed crop usage by a sizable amount.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Yes, you would think. But the Southwest has two growing seasons, so it's ideal for perishable crops like fruits and vegetables, which happen to be water-intensive. Us in the Midwest have only one growing season, so we are resigned to growing commodity crops like grains and legumes where the crops can preserve until the next year's harvest. We have millennia of irrigation techniques for addressing the water shortage in the Southwest, whereas our techniques for addressing the Midwest's wintertime deficit of sun are limited and expensive (greenhouses, basically).

That's maybe 70% of why the Southwest is such an agricultural powerhouse... the other 30% is farm subsidies that pick winners and losers and provide farmers with incentives to grow certain crops even in contradiction to natural factors like climate and soil type. These are the reason the Midwest produces far more commodity crops than America actually needs, so we're forced to put ethanol in our gas and high-fructose corn syrup in pretty much everything else.

But I would love to see regional produce get bigger. No reason Chicagoans should be eating fruits and veggies from California or Chile in the summertime when Wisconsin and Michigan are perfectly capable of growing those things. But it's always gonna be a niche market until politicians in DC get serious about reforming our insane farm policies. Right now both parties manage to agree on the farm bill every time it comes up, the only actual debate is over unrelated issues like food stamps that are jammed into the bill.

In our current market system its all about cost. If its cheaper to eat peppers from Chile than it is to grow them in a greenhouse in Wisconsin people will get the peppers form Chile.

We can thank US naval hegemony for the safety of the open seas and thus cheap access to global goods.