Read about the Colorado river’s drought crisis: how bad can it get; what communities, lives, and species are at stake if the river keeps drying up; what’s within our power to change; and what innovations and adaptations are we embracing to save ourselves. bit.ly/3N4C8dV
I live in Colorado and 95% of my residential water bill goes towards watering my lawn, which is required by the HOA. It's ridiculous. There should be city regulations in place to make developers use native drought resistant landscaping and avoid this massive waste.
@@RishabhGKoenigseggRegera Yep. HOAs can put in place all sorts of ridiculous 'laws'. When you buy a house you agree to it, in this case, keep the front and backyards according to 'community standards'. I wanted to avoid that, but unfortunately there were barely any non-HOA properties on the market in my area when I bought.
@@mammocas that's actually wild! I'd be curious to reach out to an agency or org that focuses on the environment to see if there is a work around on it. I know in my state, some folks make their yards "urban prairies" and get designated as such to get around those rules. It's wild that a group of people wanting an aesthetically pleasing community can decide that individual home owners have to contribute THAT much financially because of it. My heart and wallet feel for you.
@@Sammyblackout It's possible to submit a proposal to the HOA to change the existing lawn into a different kind of landscaping, subject to approval of course. Oh and it must come from a professional company, no option to do it yourself. It's something I've been considering, but it also means investing several thousand dollars at once to re-do all the landscaping.
If only the diorama actually included how much additional water is used for animal product processing. Yes the slaughtering of animals and the washing and packaging of meats requires tons of water usage that's why I'm walking away from this video believing it's already inaccurate
I’ve noticed they’ve been doing it for about a year or so, although there were earlier experiments in the technique such as in the “Glad You Asked” series. It’s close to displacing most of their animations now, and I think that’s a good thing to be sure.
You forgot to mention that a field of alfalfa will consume more water than other crops and farmers are picking it specifically for that because in their water rights agreements if they use less water it means that next year their water allocation is reduced.
CA's water rights scheme needs a complete overhaul. Those laws were made using an unusually wet spell over a century ago and have only caused problems since.
While "use it or lose it" makes a great story, it is not as true as it once was. In the upper basin (CO, NM, UT, WY) the states have largely changed their laws so that this is no longer an issue. In the lower basin (CA, AZ, NV), irrigation districts have fixed entitlements and regulations that allow them to bank unused water in Lake Mead.
Well done. My take away is that rather than being held hostage by the evergreen growers, we need to regulate the market better and dis-incentivize the activity. Levy higher export tariffs, higher water costs, or ? It seems a strange thing, watering the desert, to grow a crop we don’t directly eat.
2 points: 1) if all of the crop goes to feeding something that we eat then it is still valuable to our food supply. 2) the fact that the area is so productive for growing alfalfa, offsets the costs of water. The reason that residential water is targeted by regulations is that some see aesthetics as less important than maintaining a food source.
@@LivinBilly I think what worries me is how much of it ends up exported. Maybe i don't know enough, but growing an evergreen cash crop in the desert seems absurd, or at least unsustainable.
@@LivinBilly it may offset the private costs of water consumption for farmers to irrigate their crops but it clearly does not offset the social cost we all pay in the southwestern united states in the form of wildfires and other things. Let's not conflate the price one pays with the price society pays on their behalf.
@@spencerlively3049 If you want to pass "societies cost" on to producers, they will just pass it on to consumers anyways. If wildfires are such a "cost to society" then people shouldn't live where there are high chances of wildfires.
@@LivinBilly By that token, we shouldn't be growing water intensive crops in the middle of a desert. We don't have to ban cattle ranching or the agriculture of ranching feed, we can just move it elsewhere. I am sure elsewhere in the US gets plenty of rainfall and have land to grow cattle feed of some kind. Seems like an easy solution.
65% of the water in Utah goes to alfalfa. This makes up about 1% of the State's GDP. Center pivot uses 900gal/minute. Utah has not given up on the Lake Powell Pipeline. The State has only pushed back the Bear River Project which would lower the Great Salt Lake even more. Utah has the lowest water rates in the Nation. Utah is the 2nd driest State.
I wonder if a shift to American seaweed production could supplement the buyout of alfalfa in Utah? The future reduction in greenhouse is worth the investment. The addition of the seaweed to the cows' diets on the Straus dairy farm proved effective, showing an average of a 52 percent reduction in enteric methane emissions, with one cow's emissions reduction as high as 92 percent.
Seaweed farming has promise. In addition to sequestering carbon, it can provide habitat for fish and mitigate local effects of ocean acidification. Unlike other forms of aquaculture, it doesn't depend on inputs like fish feed or antibiotics that can throw local ecosystems out of whack. Still, the most effective way to sequester carbon is to not release it in the first place. For example, scientists recently calculated that bottom trawling (a fishing method that involves scraping the ocean floor with giant nets) releases as much carbon into the atmosphere as the entire aviation industry does-about a billion metric tons a year. A global ban on trawling could accomplish today what sinking kelp could only hope to do in the future.
I have a relative that is a Utah alfalfa farmer. Most of their sales are to Japan the past 10 years. They pay more than US customers, even after shipping cost Seems problematic to me to use our limited water to feed Japanese cows.
@@genybr I'm going to exaggerate this a bit, but we're not really "just eating tasty food", we are eating more beef than ANY OTHER GENERATION BEFORE US. We are GORGING ourselves on cattle and assuming this is the normal.
In my country Algeria, we only eat red meat once a month or even less, I get it that beef is tasty, but is it essential for a healthy human diet considering the outstanding side effects on the environment?
really frustrating when 80-90% of media coverage is on residential + commercial usage when 80-90% of the usage is agriculture. refreshing (ha!) to see a video which helps get to the core of the conservation issue.
@@cavolpert No meat means reduced food production and lower water consumption. Eating animals is a lot less efficient than eating crops, like soybeans, which are in majority used to feed cattle.
Saudi Arabia: _We're going to cut OPEC production so prices increase_ Also Saudi Arabia: _We bought land in Kingman, AZ so we can grow alfalfa to export back to the Kingdom. To do this we will pump as much groundwater as we want since Arizona has no laws restricting the pumping of groundwater_ The United States: _Ok no problem_
So let me get this straight. We are going to pay farmers, who have unrestricted access to municipal water they don't own, for said water that they don't own (but have unrestricted access to), so that they can do no work on that field, just so we can have enough water to live? And if we don't pay them for their not-work, then we will just let those farmers use all that water to send non-consumable crops to another desert nation, an authoritarian desert nation that is historically antagonistic to the US, in spite of our own citizens ability to access affordable, clean drinking water? Sounds just like America.
People will look back at our times and shake their heads. Producing an excessive amount of meat from plants grown in the desert and thereby rendering entire regions uninhabitable during the accelalerating climate crisis is the perfect example of what's wrong with our way of doing things.
@@CraftyF0X well, obviously capitalism has failed at getting it under control, like it does most things (fail), so we have to take any other means necessary!
It’s unfortunate they barely even mention how helpful it would be for everyone to reduce the amount of meat they consume. I stopped eating meat almost exactly one year ago after 42 years of eating meat daily. My diet now is diverse and delicious, I’ve lost 70 pounds and am now at my ideal weight, and have eliminated every health issue I had. I was scared to stop eating meat and thought it would be impossible. It took me months to even start trying. But it’s literally the best thing I’ve done for myself in my entire life, and I know it’s better for our planet too. Watch the documentary Forks Over Knives and if nothing else, consider making the change for your own benefit.
Wow, it's absolutely shocking how humans create convoluted strategies to problems when the simplest, most effective solution was glossed over in a few seconds in this video. I don't know when people are going to realise that we either have to make the tough decisions ourselves or the climate is going to make it for us. Nevermind, it's already doing that
"...but I like cheeseburgers... so here's some complicated economic solution that's not going to work instead" It's so weird how people shut their brains off when faced with insurmountable evidence that they need to change.
i think you underestimate the power of lobbying and decoy campaigns. Spending a few hundred million dollars for a "news" broadcaster to lie and sway public opinion away from profits like cattle, right to repair and even a presidential campaign is not even walking around money for some companies. To put things into perspective the top SIX companies in the world have more money combined than any single countries government in the entire world. These six companies with HQs in the US have more money than the entire world if you exclude, china, the euro, the US and japan. search total money in the world chart if you want a visual representation although most articles are out of date, the imbalance has only grown.
@@Guardian_Arias Lobbying does absolutely nothing when politicians know that people don't actually care about an issue. If you're not WILLING to give up meat, politicians know that anything that increases its price or reduces its availability will mean lost votes. That's why more people have to choose to go vegan before any of that starts working.
@@michaelkossin2765 @michaelkossin2765 its not meat its beef, and i prefer to get my protein from legumes. Additionally a politician in new york that has received large sums of "donations" from some highly coincidental companies has been currently sitting on a rather big bill that pass with 59 to 4 at the Senate and this politician is refusing to sign or veto the bill and just seems to be buying time at the moment. So im sure lobbying does nothing, never mind how ubsurd "speaking fees" are and the kind of companies happen to pay these fees around key bills.
Exactly. I was baffled when the college professor was like "before we all stop eating meat we should explore other solutions." Like why not do both? Just stop eating meat and dairy for the time being while exploring other options. Now is the time for action we can't just wait around anymore. We need to start making changes before it's too late.
Its not a terrible idea if your goal is produce a huge amount of food. Humans have actually massivly increased the amount of animal biomass on the planet. The two ways we have done so are fertilizer and irrigation. Irrigation allows you to take water that would otherwise just flow into the ocean and redirect it to places that are perfect to grow things but only miss the one key ingredient water. The Central valley for example has excellent soil and sunshine and is close to population centers. Just misses water. The problem is we have underpriced water. In a fairer and freer market farmers would be paying much more for water. We would still farm in the desert but we would do it less. We would still have cheese burgers but they would cost more. But the extra costs would be more than made up for in savings in other places.
The video mentions that alfalfa is a crop that humans don't eat, but the second largest water consumer, corn, also doesn't really feed humans. It's mostly for livestock feed and ethanol. A small percentage does feed humans in the form of high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, corn meal, corn starch, etc often found in junk foods. Quite the system we've created here.
@@rorypaul153 and extreme obesity and destroyed topsoil and polluted waterways and 40-50% wasted food that ends up in dumpsters and deforestation/desertification and of course extreme water usage during a thousand year drought. Should I keep going? Did you watch this video at all?
@@oHaiKuu thats not the reason at all. The reason is because we would then not be producing enough food to feed everyone we need to feed. Like i said, animals can produce far more food than crops could ever imagine. That’s how the US did it in the past….back when there were worries of running out of food…..
@@rorypaul153 do you have any idea how much water and pounds of feed it takes to fatten and harvest beef cattle? It is absolutely not the most efficient way to feed humans.
Very well constructed video. I believe every high school student should have a yearly class where they make these. They would improve their tech, communication, research, writing, speaking, art, and many other skills immensely!
"...but I like cheeseburgers... so here's some complicated economic solution that's not going to work instead" It's so weird how people shut their brains off when faced with insurmountable evidence that they need to change.
That the thing, they live in the desert... Califorina has been drying up for thousands of year now. Those are the facts. I think people needs to start buying form local farmers instead of food stores that go through multiple companies to bring it to you
I don't mean to be rude, but look at his belly. These cheeseburgers are making him sick. If he can't take care of himself, how can he take care of the environment?
Being in Vegas, we were taught our usage impacted everything. It’s a literal drop in the bucket. We still lead water conservation. This is helpful research.
I hope every media company can start to be HONEST about the major users of water and the impact that reducing red meat consumption can have. Thanks for making this!
Red meat AND dairy consumption. There's a lot of cattle to feed in the dairy industry, and I believe California has the biggest dairy industry. Giving up beef is one thing, but a lot of people "absolutely cannot give up" their cheese.
It will affect local food production , which can casue food prices increases due to less supply and higher transportation cost from other food producers.
Exactly. People have their livelihoods and homes there already. Perhaps giving them a sustainable alternative such as subsidizing a non water intensive crop as much as the US subsidizes dairy and corn could be a more viable solution. Another idea could be tax benefits for farms that can use water below a certain gallons/acre mark. Investing in vertical indoor farms (hydroponics, aquaponics etc) which use a lot less water since they have little to no evaporation loss is another possible way. Of course not all crops can be transitioned to this but it's a start.
@@hereiseminem They knew it was a desert. And they’ve made lots of money while depleting a public resource. Never mind farmers get lots of subsidies already. They certainly have no reason to expect ever more subsidies for problems they’re causing.
@@hereiseminem You know why they grow AlfaAlfa in the desert, even tho its one of the most impractical plants to be grown in the desert? Water rights, if the farmer uses less water, he looses that water next year...
@@hereiseminem Absolutely agree, the subsidies on corn/wheat are one of the biggest factors in determining what farmers grow so if the government provided subsidies on more sustainable, soil-regenerative, less water-intensive crops I think it'd help
I think that other crops need to be considered for feeding cattle. Clover and other cereal grasses are more resistant to drought and moisture loss. I have also heard that a lot of the property is owned by foreign companies and individuals - so essentially the water in the Southwest is largely being exported along with the feed.
It literally shows you know nothing. Let's just feed cows and cattle cereal and popcorn and chips right 😂😂😂 that's what you're saying. Cattle can only eat certain kinds of food like alfalfa 🤦 they don't eat tomatoes carrots and other things and if they can it's not enough to keep them alive 🤦 why don't you tell spiders to stop eating insects or dolphins to stop eating fish or pandas to stop eating bamboo 🤦 it's because not all animals can eat a variety of different sorts of foods like people can. 🤦 And the stupidity award goes to you 🏆
This is such an important topic, and I'm glad Vox has taken it on. As a resident of the West, I see my environment changing rapidly around me in ways that are downright terrifying, yet with limited recognition from those in charge around here. What sticks in my mind is: "what happens when millions of people, either by choice or by necessity, must leave the West and call someplace else home?". Who will be able to make that choice, and how will we support those unable to make that choice? The issue of water in the West is not limited to just the western United States, its likely to affect the entire country as well as how we expect to manage environmental issues of similar magnitude as they present themselves to us around the world in the coming years. And they will undoubtedly present themselves.
I think you should hope that people from other parts of the USA will welcome you as a domestic asylum seeker instead of treating you the same way as the people in the USA treat foreign asylum seekers
When all of those people leave there will be less demand on resources and infrastructure. The people who leave benefit and the people who stay benefit. Technology let's us spread out to less dense areas while still being productive which should help everything. Moved from Cali to Ohio... Rent $1250 -> $950 SqFt 650 -> 1150
EVERY well-made documentary about human enviromental impact follows roughly the same story: 1) You were told that cutting your consumption on [this resource] is neccessary to save the Earth 2) Actually residental usage counts to below 10% of all consumption. 3) Big business / agriculture / industry / military is responsible for the other 70-90% 4) Nobody really seems to care, regulate or even talk about it Seriously, I'm more and more sure that the most enviromentally concious decisions we can made is to just buy things which are made in sustainable way. To vote with your wallet And even then it's HARD, because estimating enviromental impact is way out of scope for everyday consumer and companies will try to sell absurd ideas like "our cruise ships take 30% less fuel than decade ago therefore they are eco-friendly"
I feel like you just highlighted how the issues we are facing are not solvable on an individual level and then suggested an individualist solution. if the problem is in the system, in how our society operates and is organized, struggling to be responsible consumers will never be enough. it is a good thing to do. don't stop doing that, but understand that isn't going to fix our problems.
It doesn't fix the problem of unsustainable production, because with the current regulations and system producers can only produce what's profitable, even if that's not what's sustainable for our planet.
I'm very surprised that you didn't mention the lack of a coordinated federal response, leading to landowners deliberately choosing to maximize their water usage by growing alfalfa due to their allocated water rights being based on "use it or lose it" laws in some states, and municipalities like St. George, UT insisting that they can be golf course destinations based on how much water they have been allocated-- never mind that that water no longer exists. Sad that it's taken this long for the feds to get serious about this disaster.
I would love to see another version of this video done where they are mining for all the lithium batteries. For some articles are saying that they go through 22 million liters of water per day to produce lithium batteries. Great video!
while 22 million gallons of water may seem like a lot its really not even 1% of 1% of the water used on a daily basis by the western states. More water is used daily to water golf courses just in southern California (Bakersfield to San Diego) than is used for mining lithium. Just putting it into perspective for you.
@@Josh-qv3zu do you know how many lithium mining plants there are across the us? And thank you for explaining that to me. And 22 million liters a day does sound like a lot and would it be enough to help out the ones that have zero water. Cuz when I multiply that on how much water they used per month or per year that seems like it a lot.
@@Domin8squad Well according to google theres only one operational lithium mine in the US and its at Thacker Pass in Northern Nevada. Research shows that it takes roughly 500,000 gallons of water to mine 1 ton of lithium. The mine in Nevada produces about 60,000 tons of lithium per year which comes out to about 30 billion gallons of water used daily which again isnt even 1% of 1% of the water used in the western states yearly. Remember 22 trillion gallons of water is used every year. Thats 22,000 billions. Lithium mining is the least of our worries when it comes to conserving water. Farming in the deserts is far far worse. and honestly needs to be cut down drastically. Farmers will go out of business some families will be ruined but it for the greater good. Save a couple 1000 farmers or protect the fresh water supply for the 80 million people living in the western states. Seems like an easy decision.
This is painfully true. I live in the Imperial Valley, CA and it's named after the local power and water utility company Imperial Irrigation District which has a monopoly over everyone here. Farmers use most of the water here to grow hay/alfalfa and they have the audacity to ask everyday customers to save. There are numerous solar panel facilities viable on the way to San Diego all of which the electricity is sold to other cities outside our own county. The people with power cater to the farmers 1st and the people 2nd, humans aren't eating hay so why the need to plant 100s of fields for it?
You know, we can easily grow hay and alfalfa in another part of the country with plenty of water. The Midwest should just pick up the slack so that California doesn't go dry.
I also live in the Imperial Valley. And the IID existing is a good thing. There is no monopoly. It's publicly owned which is why we have the lowest energy costs in the state. Is the watering of alfalfa a problem? Yes. Do we still need the water for other crops? Also yes. The Imperial Valley supplies the entire nation with winter produce every year because nowhere else can it be grown. The issue is not with the farmers but with consumption. If the public demands beef on this grand of a scale then farmers will continue to grow feed at the scale required. If the public cut back on beef consumption then water would not be allocated nearly as much as it is now to cattle feed. The problem is squarely with the consumers and not the farmers. The Imperial Valley is an Eden. 120 years ago it was a barren wasteland of desert sands. Because of irrigation it transformed into an agricultural powerhouse that exports food not just to the rest of the country but to other countries as well. It's less than 5% of the size of the Central Valley and yet the value of its produce is 12% of that of the Central Valley. That is a remarkable number considering the difference in size.
@@jonathanbowers8964 The Midwest isn't just some empty place where we can just start growing a bunch of extra crops. We already produce 93% of all ethanol in this country from our corn crops. Should we just stop doing that for poor old Cali?
@@jonathanbowers8964 That is the most unaware thing i have ever heard. We tried that remember silly? Its called the dust bowl. Someone did not pass history class
@@remster5284 Ethanol production to serve as a fuel replacement is also horrifically inefficient. Some studies have shown it to produce 24% more carbon than just drilling for more gas, in addition to using up tons of water and farmland. It should just stop.
US has far too much reliance on meat. Cattle industries are heavily subsidized. That's why fast food is so cheap and convenient, and why salads are so expensive. We need a shift in subsidies to support plant agriculture for human consumption over animal agriculture, and a cultural shift away from beef-heavy diets.
Well presented. I've been guilty of heavy beef consumption my entire life -until three weeks ago when the Cardiologist sat me down at 41 yrs old, to discuss my 2nd Heart CT scan results....
I have traveled a lot through the American west and the wanton waste of water from alfalfa farmers is incredible. You frequently see spray irrigation running at high noon in the desert. Probably more than 90% of the water evaporates. Such a waste of resources.
Zac, insult folks all you want, it doesn’t make you less wrong. On any daylong drive through ag areas in the west, you will see folks irrigating at mid day
@@tuckerbugeater if you can literally see what spraying around and feel that the heat and relative humidity means much of that will evaporate, yes, you can make an assumption that quite a lot of water is being wasted.
A whole lot goes into cattle. It’s clear that people aren’t going to give it up as easily. But even if the US cuts their consumption down, around to the global average, that could do a whole lot to help
You don't have to cut consumption, you just have to move things around. One option would be to eat more grass-fed beef and to move beef cattle farms to areas outside of the southwest
@@elizabethfrohn-hengst296 I'm not sure that is an option - by my understanding grass-fed beef requires significantly more land per tonne of meat produced (there are simply more calories in a field of corn than in a field of grass). Already something like 41% of the continental US is used for cattle and feed. To produce the same amount, but entirely grass-fed would require a higher proportion of land. Which isn't really possible, both because not all land in the US is suitable for pasture and because...well...it's being used for other things, like growing other food, timber and national parks. As well as literally just cities and infrastructure.
@@elizabethfrohn-hengst296 you still have to cut consumption no matter what which will naturally happen if the source changed pastured raised just due to price difference. But we’d also need to protect forests from being razed for pasture as is what’s happening in Brazil. The level of beef consumption is untenable full stop.
@@elizabethfrohn-hengst296 deforest the habitable half of the continental US to make room for more cows who already use nearly half of the land in the continental US. Makes perfect sense. Or...we could eat Impossible burgers and drink oat milk.
Showing the people dispensing and essentially moving around the water in the different sizes of glasses is a good nod to how we move around water currently to meet our demands in this economy. Well done.
Alfalfa Farmer here- just wanted to drop my two cents. The west grows so much alfalfa for several reasons. 1. Climate: Alfalfa has a deep tap root and can be very drought tolerant. It does require a lot of water but it is also one of the most productive crops on the planet. If you compare pounds produced per gallon of water used you will find that alfalfa is not a wasteful crop. Alfalfa also is extremely difficult to grow in areas that receive a lot of rainfall. It has to dry in the field for 3-7 days after being cut before it can be baled. If rain falls on the hay after it has been cut it loses a drastic amount of nutrients and begins to mold. This is why the desert is a perfect place to grow alfalfa. (Alfalfa is also native to the Middle East, so it is much more at home in the desert than many human food crops are). 2. Cattle: What most people don’t realize is that much of the nations beef supply begins with ranchers in the west. In the west, there are millions and millions of acres that are not suitable for crop production but they can still be used to produce beef. During the spring and summer months cattle graze and raise their young, utilizing land that is only useful for grazing. The winter months require hay to be fed in much of the west, hence the need for alfalfa and hay production. Because of the bulk nature of alfalfa it cannot be shipped long distances super efficiently, so it makes more sense to grow it close to where it is needed. 3. Economics: It is very difficult to get an accurate measurement of the economic impact of alfalfa. This is because the vast majority (in my area, about 90%) of alfalfa is grown and fed to cows on the same ranch. Because there is no point of sale, it’s very difficult to correctly value alfalfa’s contribution to state economies. But I feel comfortable in stating that 95% + of all cattle in the USA are fed alfalfa at some point, for many of them it is the sole source of nutrition in the winter. I’m not attempting to change anyone’s mind, the numbers in this video don’t lie. But it is worth considering that cattle production in the west is an extremely efficient use of range and forest not suitable for crop production, and that the arid regions where alfalfa is grown are almost perfectly suited to alfalfa. Alfalfa thrives where other crops might struggle, so in that sense it’s worth asking if alfalfa is really all that wasteful, even if it isn’t directly used to feed humans.
I’m very familiar with dairy products. Between the hay, corn for the cows(cow corn is different than people corn..they don’t use any pesticides basically less work and gets used in their feed) , cows drinking water, and then production and all that goes into that, flushing the lines multiple times, cleaning the tankers, the filler for bottles, and all around cleaning that goes into production and keeping the cows in a good environment, it takes a tremendous amount of water and effort
You had me until the very end, where the solution is supposedly to pay for farmers to maybe if they want not grow some of one type of crop. That is not at all a solution, and you already explained why in the video.
Yep. The solution is incredibly simple. People just expect these problems to solve themselves without ever having to change anything about how they consume. And so they're scared of trying Impossible burgers and oat milk.
@@Noe11e the sun. These crops ARE meant to be grown in places with high amounts of sunlight. That’s why they’re grown there. Not that hard to understand.
Water heavy crops should only be grown in areas that get plenty of water, simple as. Grow the alfalfa in places like Western Washington, Oregon, and the East Coast. It doesn't have to be farmed in California.
@Chris Timmins good luck with convincing people of that. Easier to ban alfalfa exports. Or ban the growing of super water intensive crops in drought afflicted areas like almonds.
Ever been to the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers? Billions of gallons of fresh water flow into the ocean unused every day. We have plenty of water it's just the ridiculous extreme environmentalists tell you not to use it and the Democrats stupidly listen.
Here in Arizona, the state (aka our greedy governor) has lease a ton of land and water for a Saudi Arabian company to grow alfalfa for themselves. It’s irritating that the politicians in these states that are at the biggest risk for a water crisis only seem to care about profit in the short run rather than water conservation.
I'm from Michigan, where we have a ton of water and I remember going to Moab, Utah on July one summer and I was amazed that every house had a green lawn in front of it. It was the middle of the desert and their lawns were much greener than our lawns in Michigan where we had plenty of water to do so! That was 2003 so I don't know if it's changed but I thought those people we're nuts, wasting water in a way most people even in water-rich Michigan don't.
Basically, having new residential development in many places in Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona is nuts! The land is cheap, the houses are cheap... yeah, sure. But the cost of supplying these communities with water, electricity, and food will be environmentally unsustainable.
For the record - the "markets" logic for housing development is nuts not only in the US. Around my home town in Europe, housing dev. consumes good agricultural land. Which will become a valued commodity under climate change.
I live in Utah. Our state governor owns an alfalfa farm, and last year he told us to "pray for rain" amidst drought. Lots of state govt corruption here is making everything worse...
Amen! Our land developer politicians will wring the last dollar along with the last drop and then leave us with violent foreign owned slums, at least in the valleys.
Fallowing is basically just paying a ransom to farmers for a fair share of water. The farmers aren't paid with money manifested from thin air. There are more water efficient farming methods that can be used, such as direct-burial drip irrigation systems, indoor or greenhouse hydro/aquaponics, rainwater swale irrigation, etc. The solution isn't to pay rural farmers a ransom, it's to help fund them changing over to a more sustainable method of water utilization.
I'm tired of "solutions" that expect something to magically change without behavioral changes. I haven't eaten beef or pork in over 5 years and I've transitioned my diet to being well over 50% vegetarian in the past 2 years. I've only had plant-based milk for nearly a year. Either we give up something small like our favorite foods, or we give up something big like water or our planet. You can't get meaningfully different outputs without significantly different inputs.
I knew agriculture would be the biggest culprit. You cannot grow lettuce and carrots in a desert without an ungodly amount of water. It was all a mirage that should never have happened.
Fruits and vegetables are not the issue. It's all the crops grown, all the land wasted (half the continental U.S.), for non-human consumption. Do we need to eat animal products in order to be happy and healthy? No. All of this is done by choice. We can make different choices.
And what’s worse is that some farmers use it at subsidized rates. A few years ago, in Arizona, Ducey’s government signed a deal with a Saudi company where they could tap into groundwater at rates well below market level.
You expect them to give up good things in life so China and India can continue to increase co2 polution over the next 10 years? How about stop having so many kids. If there was only 1 or 2 billion people, there would be enough resources for everyone
Judgement is a national trait of all Europeans. None of them are going to stop pretending their superior to everyone else. Don't worry, if Russia decides to invade Europe, we'll ignore your attitudes and rescue you again.
and it's not like the beef alternatives are that inconvenient anyway. In 2022 all it really means is reaching your arm over 3 more feet to grab ground Impossible instead of ground beef.
@@iamthepinkylifter Its the same price, less fatty and drier. Ive read the food value and it contains alot more salt than meat. Theres just nothing going for it
There are so many signs telling us to gradually shift our diets towards plant-based... Unfortunately there's little incentive for companies to encourage that, since it would decrease their production.
Precisely. Also, people that just don't want to change because of their 'addiction' and 'loyalty' to meat. People just don't want to leave their food comfort zone and begin giving far fetched excuses such as "Grass fed cows don't have any environmental impact" and "It's part of the governments ploy" etc. When in fact the leading cause of forest deforestation is for cattle grazing.
Well that the thing, most "farmers" aregoing out of business so more corptations and imports are taking over last year we imported 2.9 billion pounds of beef.
My well gives me 3 gallons a minute(residential permit). Yet I use maybe ten gallons a day. I have fish pools, but they are also covered and protected from evaporation. Then my overflow goes into a drip system and nutrients for other edible landscaping. It’s soooo much setup and labor. Once the system is operating though, it’s easy to maintain. I like beef, all my county (orphan co) is bovine, but it’s becoming more necessary to diversify. Thanks for reading.
Utahn here- my family owns an alfalfa field. Water here is all about shares. Water shares. You either buy a share or lease a share. Water is in two categories- agriculture and residential. We lease water shares from farmers who own “extra shares” if there’s extra water. Our field has been fallow for 3 years now bc we can’t get the water shares- all the farmers are selling residential shares. They can sell residential for more money than agriculture shares for us. Farmers are now selling left and right to house developers, who then bring in more residential lots so it’s even less likely to get agri shares. To all those saying that farmers should pay- we do. Water is expensive and breaking even from all the expenses is rare. The less green space, the more houses built, the more roads and asphalt,the hotter it gets. I’m not saying that farming is not part of the problem bc it is, but farmers aren’t the villains here. We’re struggling. We grow food to feed the cows that you eat. Also, the farmland is slowly being pushed out to most hostile regions by suburban sprawl. We’re in a viscous cycle that keeps getting worse.
Another important aspect is how inefficient current watering practices for a lot of crops are. Such as center pivot, one of the methods shown in the video, is terribly inefficient. This method allows good portion to not actually water the plant bc of evaporation and other factors. Drip irrigation is much more efficient but more expensive but I’d rather spend a bit more on the system than have no water at all. Like y’all said, It’s gonna be a hard sell to have people change their diets but improving the systems of how we grow it could make a big difference.
How about we ban growing the crops that take up 1/3 of the water in the drought stricken region? There are a other areas of the country where they could be grown and not affect the water table so drastically.
Industry is efficient. Water rights out west are better for business, land is cheap, and the weather forgiving. Moving could make the cost go up so that it wouldn’t be worth it. Enterprise will always take the path of least resistance. We would have to construct barriers to making their practices viable
@@OurayTheOwl it's not moving, it's changing what you grow. And the water rights is a huge issue. Farmers are known to just run the water if they haven't used their allotment to prevent cuts.
If all alfalfa farms used sprinklers instead of flood irrigation that would save 3/4 of the water runoff, I live next to an alfalfa field and once they open the gate to flood irrigate for the first 8-15 hours water is not flowing onto the field it is being drained right into the drain ditch so even if they blocked the water runoff while flooding the field they could save 1/2 of it from bypassing the field and going straight into the drain.
Not sure that makes sense...but if so they may be doing it on purpose...because the more water they use the more the are allocated the next year...they literally incentivize wasting water...
The drains return the water back to the river in many irrigation districts, so it's not entirely a loss. But yes there is still water lost to evaporation and seepage.
Again with the completely uninformed claims.. Do you understand that it takes electricity to run sprinklers? Flood irrigation requires significantly less resources and sprinkler irrigation has significantly higher evaporation losses. When water goes into the ground, do you think it just ceases to exist at that point? Do you know what a water table is?
Great info, but one key highlight that always baffles me.... Mass water intensive agriculture in a DESERT, like doesn't head make people scratch their heads in confusion is always beyond me.
Somebody needs to unpave quite a few places that have become blight problems. It would open up quite a bit of new farmland in places that get rain. Unpave lots of abandoned Walmart parking lots. There are watermains right in the streets.
@@b.a.d.2086 So true, we forget because of a how car travel centered cultured we have in North America how much space is wasted on that. Sadly only so much can be done to overhaul infrastructure.
I'm from SE Asia and I never understood the need to water lawns. If its dry season we just let them turn brown. They will grow back once the wet season starts.
Beautifully shot, love the little diorama idea! Pretty reductive though -those precetages are a bit more debated, not so cut and dry. Human water consumption in cities is also being highly criticized as needing to be reduced, not just getting more water from farmers to use. Mike Young (water economist) also makes an argument that we need to be leaving water for our environments (for the river, birds and animals)... Thank you for the vid
There's another water waste that might be worth looking into. Evaporation. The truth of the matter is, certain land geometries reduce evaporation. It's like if you get a towel soaking and just throw it on the floor in a mound. It'll stay wet, particularly in the middle for quite a while. Compare that to laying a wet towel on the floor... it'll stay wet quite a bit longer, but since it's right up against the floor, the bottom tends to stay wet (since there isn't great air circulation under the towel). Compare that to hanging the towel on the line, and it will dry EXTREMELY fast. It's got both sides of the towel exposed to air, and the air is free flowing. So how can this be done in the West to conserve water? Well, you want to somehow do 2 things. 1. You want to get the water from where it falls to where it pools as quickly and efficiently as possible. 2. You want to reduce the air flow as much as possible. One way you can do this is by planning farms runoff better. They need their rainfall, of course... there's no getting around that, but much of their rainfall just evaporates anyway. If you strategized channels to drain to the nearest aquifer as quickly as possible, you will not only save evaporation and replentish aquifers, but you will also potentially have an underground well to pump from and water your plants more regularly.
Can I just say I love these presentation from Vox so much ! This is what video all about, visual to reality. And a little bit touch of art. Perfection.
Once again a great short documentary. The visuals in your videos are always simple and on point, yet very well made. And the all thing is well documented while being efficiently vulgarized and explained (speaking as a foreigner with very limited skills when it comes to the English language). The content of the video in itself is of course much less pleasing :(
Don’t forget how the large soda companies use their access to fill tanker trucks from residential water facilities, then bottle it and sell it as bottles water for profit.
Why? Do you think the amount they use is in any way significant compared to agricultural use? Did you watch the video and somehow miss the entire point??
It's worse than unmanaged, in the entire Western United States, you are REQUIRED to use water. Oh and it has to be used for "productive" purposes such as agriculture. It can't be left in the river for the fish or for other people downriver. If you don't use it all, the amount you can use is reduced by law
@Mark Ferenc It's much more complicated than that, and each state has different protections/ requirements under the law. There are extensive federal and state protections in California, for example, for various important salmon species.
Western water law is the problem. It's based on senior water rights. These rights were given to the first people who used the water. In many cases it was miners and that has been passed down through the generations. Things have changed so much in the last 150 years since senior water rights were allocated. This has to be addressed or nothing will improve.
It's stunning to realise that beef/dairy accounts for more than twice the water consumption of the entire Western US Residential, Commercial and Industrial sector But instead of asking ppl too completely get off a beef/dairy diet, wouldn't it be better to have them reduce their consumption by a fourth or a third??? That would be enough water savings to cater to the entire Residential OR Commercial/Industrial sector The only way to do that though is to put a tax surcharge on beef/dairy. That way, if a family budgets $400 a month for beef/dairy, now they only get 3/4th of the quantity for that money. The earned income by the State could go towards things like fallowing....🤔
Hi, LA water district, I declare myself a western farmer, and since this year I'm watering 0% of my non-existent farmland, I will take all the compensation money thank yoooouuuu~~~
Interestingly some of these deserts weren't deserts a 150 years ago. Understanding how ecology and farming can work hand in hand will be our only way forward.
im not saying to cut out all meat, but americans seriously need to have less dependency on meat and dairy in their diet, more fruits, vegetables and grains, my friend visited the states and felt sick after a week because she struggled to find anywhere that served fresh fruit and vegetables instead of fast food
umm, you don't know Americans. 1/3 of the population can't even regulate their calorie intake and are obese. Likely, a huge factor why covid deaths were so bad in the US.
Oh, I despise fast food as any grown, mature adult. But your friend could've had fresh fruits and veggies in the U.S. They're these magical things called "farmer's markets" and "groceries" where one can buy so many fresh fruits and veggies it's obscene. I think your friend from abroad is a bit daft if she (or you) couldn't figure that one out...
I wish the government would stop subsidizing beef and cow milk and start subsidizing plant-based meats and non-dairy milks which use significantly less water.
This is bad farm policy. Apparently, the growers of fodder are better represented than the rest of us. First, the fact that farms are allowed to use irrigation systems that expose a large amount of the water they use to evaporation is absolutely criminal. I imagine many farmers are also growing water intensive crops, because they are profitable at the price they are paying for water. Obviously, the more of this land to go fallow, the better, but the waste needs to be cut out. While I have little sympathy for the farmers that have been gaming the system, the government is going to have to compensate everybody they put out of business.
This is a pricing problem. The cost of water usage (drying out an entire region) needs to be reflected in prices. It will be less profitable, companies will raise prices to consumers, and we’ll consume less.
Next step: lab grown beef, and protein crickets.. On serious note: they need to have way more vertical farms (it saves like 90% of the water used).. I'm sure billy gates will be doing that in the near future while owning the most farm land in the US
@@Aria0101 you eat bugs already, they're in most industrialized products. Also, in powder form made into pancakes? You wouldn't know it. But c'mon, where's the diy mammal cell culture 3d printer already?
The first study linked in the description literally says fallowing would have a "negligible effect" on water consumption. 10/10 reporting. Just say the truth (outlined in the study you use as reference), people need to consume less meat
Apparently we’re in a drought and we are limited to watering our lawn. My local hospital has an enormous beautiful green lawn which I waters almost daily.
Even if the global demand for meat, and subsequently alfalfa, go down significantly, the farmers will just switch to other crops that shouldn't be grown in a desert. What's worse is their transition to other crops will inevitably be subsidized with federal bail-outs because those tiny populations have disproportionate political influence. The long term solution is to not only reduce/replace meat consumption but to ban growing crops in that region, that aren't native and need irrigation.
People need to stop thinking farmers are these kind hearted country people only trying to slive off the land for their families. They are businessman trying to make profit.
There isn't a crop that exists that can grow in the amount of summer rain in the west. Most of Utah, Colorado, and the rest of the Rockies get their water from snow pack that melts into reservoirs. We irrigate with snowmelt water. If you ban irrigation, there will be food shortages, not just in the west. California grows a huge percentage of food for the US. Cut back on the most water intensive crops, like alfalfa, but not growing anything at all is a terrible idea. Unless everyone in the Midwest wants to give up their homes and land and replace them with farms.
I understand what you're saying but you need to look at things on a nationwide perspective, limiting the crop growth in the south west will cause environmental issues for the rest the country, places like the midwest would have to cut down more forests to support more people. What i would do is grow more desert grain (triticale) even if it's not native otherwise a good situation would large desalination plans for the long term and piper water from other areas in the short and moving as much as sustainable to other areas. Also increasing the yields of urban farming.
@@elizabethfrohn-hengst296 I think simply cutting back on the meat consumption would already do a lot, without having to eliminate agriculture in the desert. The food being grown go directly to sustaining humans.
This video, combined with the one on the Resnicks' in California by Nick Johnson, gives a very important account of how water is growing more scarce due to agribusiness usages, and how the situation is getting out of hand. We simply do not have leadership at the political level to cope with the problems presented by climate change. Johnson gives the example of Dianne Feinstein trading favors with the Resnicks to co-opt Californian cities' rights to water. When things get totally out of hand, and likely only then, will candidates take climate solutions into account, or run on platforms that call for changing the ways we live, and do something to limit farmers such as the Resnicks. As for inhibiting beef output, that's also a tall order, and one which calls for a kind of belt-tightening by those across the world who enjoy eating beef, something I would have trouble with myself. (I'm a cancer survivor, and need a certain amount of protein.)
As I've said before the western water compact is a huge issue it was made 100 years ago and one of the things that needs to be redone. Also better irrigation practices. Obviously growing food in the desert is weird to begin with.
You're correct. However don't underestimate politicians and "growth." Utah is bending over to "attract" big tech and more government facilities. We're already a huge low level nuclear waste facility. The CIA mops up a good portion of the Jordan river and the gentrification in every little building spot is appalling. If I were younger I'd go to places like Detroit and start plowing when all the burned and abandoned homes were. Kids with lighters get bored around plants.
@@rorypaul153 because the climate in general while well suited doesn’t get sufficient long term rain. Agriculture uses the majority of the water which in itself isn’t an issue but we don’t get sufficient water to meet those needs.
@@ElDredlord context here I see is needed I’m talking about from a water standpoint there was never enough water for wide scale farming for long drawn out periods of time. It is a desert. It seemed perfectly reasonable 100 years ago but with so many thirsty crops reliant on very few water sources something will give.
I think using “smart irrigation” techniques such as automated valves that open and close on their own or water recycling and reuse systems would help farmers save a lot of water. Even something as simple as fixing leaky pipes would conserve water
Lots of water companies lose a huge amount of water everyday because they don’t want to fix their pipes :/ so I agree, that should be a minimum conservation measure to ensure a baseline for other policies to work on
Totally irrelevant to farming, irrigation water is rarely piped in significant distance from the point at which farmers have control of it and you're not going to collect the water used to irrigate and reuse it. Your thinking highlights the disconnect between city dwellers and the reality of their food sources.
you're also forgetting about how water rights laws largely work in western states. Water conservation means using less water, which means by law the amount of water you get to use next year is reduced. Nobody has the incentive to conserve water in the Western U.S. This is first and foremost a problem with bad policy
Fallowing just sounds like holding water hostage for ransom. What I want to know is, are we talking about local farms or are these farms owned by mega corporations that are trying to meet a bottom line?
nearly all "local" farms are either owned by or under contract with a "mega corporation". They have a near total (as in - literally - 99 percent) monopoly on meat, dairy, and egg production in the US. Almost every farmer on this continent is beholden to their bottom line.
Read about the Colorado river’s drought crisis: how bad can it get; what communities, lives, and species are at stake if the river keeps drying up; what’s within our power to change; and what innovations and adaptations are we embracing to save ourselves. bit.ly/3N4C8dV
how about we don't..
Should go vegan
I live in Colorado and 95% of my residential water bill goes towards watering my lawn, which is required by the HOA. It's ridiculous. There should be city regulations in place to make developers use native drought resistant landscaping and avoid this massive waste.
You're legally forced to water your lawn and pay for it?
@@RishabhGKoenigseggRegera Yep. HOAs can put in place all sorts of ridiculous 'laws'. When you buy a house you agree to it, in this case, keep the front and backyards according to 'community standards'. I wanted to avoid that, but unfortunately there were barely any non-HOA properties on the market in my area when I bought.
@@mammocas that's actually wild! I'd be curious to reach out to an agency or org that focuses on the environment to see if there is a work around on it. I know in my state, some folks make their yards "urban prairies" and get designated as such to get around those rules. It's wild that a group of people wanting an aesthetically pleasing community can decide that individual home owners have to contribute THAT much financially because of it. My heart and wallet feel for you.
@@Sammyblackout It's possible to submit a proposal to the HOA to change the existing lawn into a different kind of landscaping, subject to approval of course. Oh and it must come from a professional company, no option to do it yourself. It's something I've been considering, but it also means investing several thousand dollars at once to re-do all the landscaping.
Work with your neighbors and try to organize and advocate for change. Get enough people to agree with you and you can change the HOA bylaws.
whoever's idea it was to do the little diorama pieces instead of an animation, and to whoever made them - excellent work
It was a lovely visual for visual learners
it's cheaper and uses less water.
Dioramas rule lol
I used to have so much fun making those in school lol
If only the diorama actually included how much additional water is used for animal product processing. Yes the slaughtering of animals and the washing and packaging of meats requires tons of water usage that's why I'm walking away from this video believing it's already inaccurate
I’ve noticed they’ve been doing it for about a year or so, although there were earlier experiments in the technique such as in the “Glad You Asked” series. It’s close to displacing most of their animations now, and I think that’s a good thing to be sure.
You forgot to mention that a field of alfalfa will consume more water than other crops and farmers are picking it specifically for that because in their water rights agreements if they use less water it means that next year their water allocation is reduced.
I love incentivising waste 🙃
WHAT!!
@@MrMiyagi005 yep, i couldn't believe it too when i found that out.
CA's water rights scheme needs a complete overhaul. Those laws were made using an unusually wet spell over a century ago and have only caused problems since.
While "use it or lose it" makes a great story, it is not as true as it once was. In the upper basin (CO, NM, UT, WY) the states have largely changed their laws so that this is no longer an issue. In the lower basin (CA, AZ, NV), irrigation districts have fixed entitlements and regulations that allow them to bank unused water in Lake Mead.
Well done. My take away is that rather than being held hostage by the evergreen growers, we need to regulate the market better and dis-incentivize the activity. Levy higher export tariffs, higher water costs, or ? It seems a strange thing, watering the desert, to grow a crop we don’t directly eat.
2 points: 1) if all of the crop goes to feeding something that we eat then it is still valuable to our food supply.
2) the fact that the area is so productive for growing alfalfa, offsets the costs of water. The reason that residential water is targeted by regulations is that some see aesthetics as less important than maintaining a food source.
@@LivinBilly I think what worries me is how much of it ends up exported. Maybe i don't know enough, but growing an evergreen cash crop in the desert seems absurd, or at least unsustainable.
@@LivinBilly it may offset the private costs of water consumption for farmers to irrigate their crops but it clearly does not offset the social cost we all pay in the southwestern united states in the form of wildfires and other things. Let's not conflate the price one pays with the price society pays on their behalf.
@@spencerlively3049 If you want to pass "societies cost" on to producers, they will just pass it on to consumers anyways.
If wildfires are such a "cost to society" then people shouldn't live where there are high chances of wildfires.
@@LivinBilly By that token, we shouldn't be growing water intensive crops in the middle of a desert. We don't have to ban cattle ranching or the agriculture of ranching feed, we can just move it elsewhere. I am sure elsewhere in the US gets plenty of rainfall and have land to grow cattle feed of some kind. Seems like an easy solution.
65% of the water in Utah goes to alfalfa.
This makes up about 1% of the State's GDP.
Center pivot uses 900gal/minute.
Utah has not given up on the Lake Powell Pipeline.
The State has only pushed back the Bear River Project which would lower the Great Salt Lake even more.
Utah has the lowest water rates in the Nation.
Utah is the 2nd driest State.
I wonder how much it would cost to buy out all alfalfa production in Utah?
I wonder if a shift to American seaweed production could supplement the buyout of alfalfa in Utah?
The future reduction in greenhouse is worth the investment. The addition of the seaweed to the cows' diets on the Straus dairy farm proved effective, showing an average of a 52 percent reduction in enteric methane emissions, with one cow's emissions reduction as high as 92 percent.
Seaweed farming has promise. In addition to sequestering carbon, it can provide habitat for fish and mitigate local effects of ocean acidification. Unlike other forms of aquaculture, it doesn't depend on inputs like fish feed or antibiotics that can throw local ecosystems out of whack.
Still, the most effective way to sequester carbon is to not release it in the first place. For example, scientists recently calculated that bottom trawling (a fishing method that involves scraping the ocean floor with giant nets) releases as much carbon into the atmosphere as the entire aviation industry does-about a billion metric tons a year. A global ban on trawling could accomplish today what sinking kelp could only hope to do in the future.
This is really sad to learn. 😢
I have a relative that is a Utah alfalfa farmer. Most of their sales are to Japan the past 10 years. They pay more than US customers, even after shipping cost Seems problematic to me to use our limited water to feed Japanese cows.
Wow it’s almost like they are growing crops that aren’t evolved to grow in the desert in the middle of a desert…
But bad party here is a cutomers who just wants to eat tasty food.
Unforgivable!
@@genybr I'm going to exaggerate this a bit, but we're not really "just eating tasty food", we are eating more beef than ANY OTHER GENERATION BEFORE US. We are GORGING ourselves on cattle and assuming this is the normal.
Well it is easier to move the water to the crops than the sun to the crops. This practice will last a bit longer than it is tenable.
i hate u jacob
In my country Algeria, we only eat red meat once a month or even less, I get it that beef is tasty, but is it essential for a healthy human diet considering the outstanding side effects on the environment?
really frustrating when 80-90% of media coverage is on residential + commercial usage when 80-90% of the usage is agriculture. refreshing (ha!) to see a video which helps get to the core of the conservation issue.
Exactly! This is the real story. I wish more outlets would actually talk about who and what is actually responsible for consuming all this water.
@@foxymulatta it will never happen unless they are dragged kicking and screaming to do it
So if the food is for humans is it still a concern? No meat means ramping up whole food production and even greater water consumption
And even for the crops we do eat, a lot of it still goes to feed cattle. We do have an overpopulation problem, an overpopulation of cows.
@@cavolpert No meat means reduced food production and lower water consumption. Eating animals is a lot less efficient than eating crops, like soybeans, which are in majority used to feed cattle.
Saudi Arabia: _We're going to cut OPEC production so prices increase_
Also Saudi Arabia: _We bought land in Kingman, AZ so we can grow alfalfa to export back to the Kingdom. To do this we will pump as much groundwater as we want since Arizona has no laws restricting the pumping of groundwater_
The United States: _Ok no problem_
I need a source on that, please. Even if it makes me miserable and further stokes my hatred of American predatory capitalism.
@@restezlameme search fondomonte and thomas galvin
this
So let me get this straight. We are going to pay farmers, who have unrestricted access to municipal water they don't own, for said water that they don't own (but have unrestricted access to), so that they can do no work on that field, just so we can have enough water to live?
And if we don't pay them for their not-work, then we will just let those farmers use all that water to send non-consumable crops to another desert nation, an authoritarian desert nation that is historically antagonistic to the US, in spite of our own citizens ability to access affordable, clean drinking water?
Sounds just like America.
That's islamaphobic!
People will look back at our times and shake their heads. Producing an excessive amount of meat from plants grown in the desert and thereby rendering entire regions uninhabitable during the accelalerating climate crisis is the perfect example of what's wrong with our way of doing things.
We're shaking our heads now but no one's listening
Yeah and immediately they tried to imply climate change is a major player in the problem, they said it in the introduction. But it's what you said
Oh, whoops you're saying that too
@@Coktane_ Nope. He didn't say climate change. He said climate crisis, which might be a more factual description of the thing
@@Coktane_ That is literally all he was talking about, are you illiterate?
Paying for not using water seems so odd... Just regulate it properly. Some of the businesses are just not feasible anymore.
The average farmer is a 60 year old white man. Our government will subsidize at the expense of everything and anyone else
Exactly! Make water cost 2-3 times more for irrigation farmers in the area. Can’t afford it? OUT OF BUSINESS!
Capitalist bandate on a capitalist problem. Behold the invisible hand solving everything... except when it doesn't.
@@CraftyF0X well, obviously capitalism has failed at getting it under control, like it does most things (fail), so we have to take any other means necessary!
But the WTO made all of those crops practically worthless on the world market, most places feed their cows trash and moldy grain
It’s unfortunate they barely even mention how helpful it would be for everyone to reduce the amount of meat they consume. I stopped eating meat almost exactly one year ago after 42 years of eating meat daily. My diet now is diverse and delicious, I’ve lost 70 pounds and am now at my ideal weight, and have eliminated every health issue I had. I was scared to stop eating meat and thought it would be impossible. It took me months to even start trying. But it’s literally the best thing I’ve done for myself in my entire life, and I know it’s better for our planet too. Watch the documentary Forks Over Knives and if nothing else, consider making the change for your own benefit.
Wow, it's absolutely shocking how humans create convoluted strategies to problems when the simplest, most effective solution was glossed over in a few seconds in this video. I don't know when people are going to realise that we either have to make the tough decisions ourselves or the climate is going to make it for us. Nevermind, it's already doing that
"...but I like cheeseburgers... so here's some complicated economic solution that's not going to work instead"
It's so weird how people shut their brains off when faced with insurmountable evidence that they need to change.
i think you underestimate the power of lobbying and decoy campaigns. Spending a few hundred million dollars for a "news" broadcaster to lie and sway public opinion away from profits like cattle, right to repair and even a presidential campaign is not even walking around money for some companies. To put things into perspective the top SIX companies in the world have more money combined than any single countries government in the entire world. These six companies with HQs in the US have more money than the entire world if you exclude, china, the euro, the US and japan.
search total money in the world chart if you want a visual representation although most articles are out of date, the imbalance has only grown.
@@Guardian_Arias Lobbying does absolutely nothing when politicians know that people don't actually care about an issue. If you're not WILLING to give up meat, politicians know that anything that increases its price or reduces its availability will mean lost votes. That's why more people have to choose to go vegan before any of that starts working.
@@michaelkossin2765 @michaelkossin2765 its not meat its beef, and i prefer to get my protein from legumes. Additionally a politician in new york that has received large sums of "donations" from some highly coincidental companies has been currently sitting on a rather big bill that pass with 59 to 4 at the Senate and this politician is refusing to sign or veto the bill and just seems to be buying time at the moment. So im sure lobbying does nothing, never mind how ubsurd "speaking fees" are and the kind of companies happen to pay these fees around key bills.
Exactly. I was baffled when the college professor was like "before we all stop eating meat we should explore other solutions." Like why not do both? Just stop eating meat and dairy for the time being while exploring other options. Now is the time for action we can't just wait around anymore. We need to start making changes before it's too late.
It's almost like it was a bad idea to turn the desert into a farm 🤔
McDonald's says otherwise.
It's easier to move around water than to move around good weather for growing crops all-year round.
@@havegottogitgud1864 Agreed, moreover if they use greenhouses the water savings will be much higher. But it's expensive of course.
@@havegottogitgud1864 where good weather is, there is water...
Its not a terrible idea if your goal is produce a huge amount of food. Humans have actually massivly increased the amount of animal biomass on the planet. The two ways we have done so are fertilizer and irrigation. Irrigation allows you to take water that would otherwise just flow into the ocean and redirect it to places that are perfect to grow things but only miss the one key ingredient water. The Central valley for example has excellent soil and sunshine and is close to population centers. Just misses water.
The problem is we have underpriced water. In a fairer and freer market farmers would be paying much more for water. We would still farm in the desert but we would do it less. We would still have cheese burgers but they would cost more. But the extra costs would be more than made up for in savings in other places.
The video mentions that alfalfa is a crop that humans don't eat, but the second largest water consumer, corn, also doesn't really feed humans. It's mostly for livestock feed and ethanol. A small percentage does feed humans in the form of high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, corn meal, corn starch, etc often found in junk foods. Quite the system we've created here.
in more ways than one. even the professor they interviewed doesn't want to give up cheeseburgers.
It’s all a system that has produced an extreme amount of food for an extremely low price. You should be happy.
@@rorypaul153 and extreme obesity and destroyed topsoil and polluted waterways and 40-50% wasted food that ends up in dumpsters and deforestation/desertification and of course extreme water usage during a thousand year drought. Should I keep going? Did you watch this video at all?
@@oHaiKuu thats not the reason at all. The reason is because we would then not be producing enough food to feed everyone we need to feed. Like i said, animals can produce far more food than crops could ever imagine. That’s how the US did it in the past….back when there were worries of running out of food…..
@@rorypaul153 do you have any idea how much water and pounds of feed it takes to fatten and harvest beef cattle? It is absolutely not the most efficient way to feed humans.
Very well constructed video. I believe every high school student should have a yearly class where they make these. They would improve their tech, communication, research, writing, speaking, art, and many other skills immensely!
A yearly diorama class?
If u want to do this shyt,u can simply become a RUclipsr and open a RUclips account.
"...but I like cheeseburgers... so here's some complicated economic solution that's not going to work instead"
It's so weird how people shut their brains off when faced with insurmountable evidence that they need to change.
That the thing, they live in the desert... Califorina has been drying up for thousands of year now. Those are the facts. I think people needs to start buying form local farmers instead of food stores that go through multiple companies to bring it to you
People have such a lack of self control.
People are made of atoms and cognitive biases.
I don't mean to be rude, but look at his belly. These cheeseburgers are making him sick. If he can't take care of himself, how can he take care of the environment?
Being in Vegas, we were taught our usage impacted everything. It’s a literal drop in the bucket. We still lead water conservation. This is helpful research.
Make sure to vote for Sisolak and Cortez Masto, don't let global warming deniers take control of your state
same in Australia. We have water restrictions all the time pretty much
@@grimaffiliations3671 So true !!
Yet we’re blamed for Mead getting low.
Vegas actually has a good water management system .
This was a BEAUTIFULLY shot video! Major compliments to the team who planned this :)
Thank you.
@@joeybaseball7352 You did not plan this
@@00maniacmanny00 yes he did
@@00maniacmanny00 Looking at the Credits, Joey seems to be the Art Director in this video! Great job
I love the props. Good job Joey and team
I have to say, I love the diorama. Seeing things laid out in such a simple, straightforward way is so nice.
But the actual problem IS NOT simple, nor is it straightforward.
I hope every media company can start to be HONEST about the major users of water and the impact that reducing red meat consumption can have. Thanks for making this!
Same. Many of them get animal product sponsors so they won't touch it
Red meat AND dairy consumption. There's a lot of cattle to feed in the dairy industry, and I believe California has the biggest dairy industry. Giving up beef is one thing, but a lot of people "absolutely cannot give up" their cheese.
Oh no certain people might lose their jobs! Well if water runs out there are going to be a lot worse problems!
Fr.
The problem is not losing jobs, it's a sustainable future with less farmers, but food for the people
It will affect local food production , which can casue food prices increases due to less supply and higher transportation cost from other food producers.
In America it's all about short term profits.
No foresight while drying up.
Well. What about not to grow in deserts?
Exactly. People have their livelihoods and homes there already. Perhaps giving them a sustainable alternative such as subsidizing a non water intensive crop as much as the US subsidizes dairy and corn could be a more viable solution. Another idea could be tax benefits for farms that can use water below a certain gallons/acre mark. Investing in vertical indoor farms (hydroponics, aquaponics etc) which use a lot less water since they have little to no evaporation loss is another possible way. Of course not all crops can be transitioned to this but it's a start.
no one have really thought about that before! I guess people in the Middle East have to eat dirt now?
@@hereiseminem
They knew it was a desert. And they’ve made lots of money while depleting a public resource. Never mind farmers get lots of subsidies already. They certainly have no reason to expect ever more subsidies for problems they’re causing.
@@hereiseminem You know why they grow AlfaAlfa in the desert, even tho its one of the most impractical plants to be grown in the desert? Water rights, if the farmer uses less water, he looses that water next year...
@@hereiseminem Absolutely agree, the subsidies on corn/wheat are one of the biggest factors in determining what farmers grow so if the government provided subsidies on more sustainable, soil-regenerative, less water-intensive crops I think it'd help
I think that other crops need to be considered for feeding cattle. Clover and other cereal grasses are more resistant to drought and moisture loss. I have also heard that a lot of the property is owned by foreign companies and individuals - so essentially the water in the Southwest is largely being exported along with the feed.
It literally shows you know nothing. Let's just feed cows and cattle cereal and popcorn and chips right 😂😂😂 that's what you're saying. Cattle can only eat certain kinds of food like alfalfa 🤦 they don't eat tomatoes carrots and other things and if they can it's not enough to keep them alive 🤦 why don't you tell spiders to stop eating insects or dolphins to stop eating fish or pandas to stop eating bamboo 🤦 it's because not all animals can eat a variety of different sorts of foods like people can. 🤦 And the stupidity award goes to you 🏆
How about going vegan? That would mean there would be plenty of water for everyone, it would free land for forests and people would be way healthier.
This should be trending. The visuals were so well done and informative!
This is such an important topic, and I'm glad Vox has taken it on. As a resident of the West, I see my environment changing rapidly around me in ways that are downright terrifying, yet with limited recognition from those in charge around here. What sticks in my mind is: "what happens when millions of people, either by choice or by necessity, must leave the West and call someplace else home?". Who will be able to make that choice, and how will we support those unable to make that choice? The issue of water in the West is not limited to just the western United States, its likely to affect the entire country as well as how we expect to manage environmental issues of similar magnitude as they present themselves to us around the world in the coming years. And they will undoubtedly present themselves.
They're only leaving because of the Newsom disaster who can't run a state right.
I think you should hope that people from other parts of the USA will welcome you as a domestic asylum seeker instead of treating you the same way as the people in the USA treat foreign asylum seekers
@@XEinstein No country should be forced to give up it's sovereignty to foreigners.
When all of those people leave there will be less demand on resources and infrastructure. The people who leave benefit and the people who stay benefit. Technology let's us spread out to less dense areas while still being productive which should help everything.
Moved from Cali to Ohio...
Rent $1250 -> $950
SqFt 650 -> 1150
@@tuckerbugeater you do know we the west are responsible for the instability that causes these people to become refugees.
EVERY well-made documentary about human enviromental impact follows roughly the same story:
1) You were told that cutting your consumption on [this resource] is neccessary to save the Earth
2) Actually residental usage counts to below 10% of all consumption.
3) Big business / agriculture / industry / military is responsible for the other 70-90%
4) Nobody really seems to care, regulate or even talk about it
Seriously, I'm more and more sure that the most enviromentally concious decisions we can made is to just buy things which are made in sustainable way. To vote with your wallet
And even then it's HARD, because estimating enviromental impact is way out of scope for everyday consumer and companies will try to sell absurd ideas like "our cruise ships take 30% less fuel than decade ago therefore they are eco-friendly"
Anything the greenies will try will result in famine and revolution. They have no winning strategy.
good luck lol
You were this close. The only decision is to pressure lawmakers into regulating those industries. Voting with your wallet doesn't work on this scale.
I feel like you just highlighted how the issues we are facing are not solvable on an individual level and then suggested an individualist solution.
if the problem is in the system, in how our society operates and is organized, struggling to be responsible consumers will never be enough. it is a good thing to do. don't stop doing that, but understand that isn't going to fix our problems.
It doesn't fix the problem of unsustainable production, because with the current regulations and system producers can only produce what's profitable, even if that's not what's sustainable for our planet.
I'm very surprised that you didn't mention the lack of a coordinated federal response, leading to landowners deliberately choosing to maximize their water usage by growing alfalfa due to their allocated water rights being based on "use it or lose it" laws in some states, and municipalities like St. George, UT insisting that they can be golf course destinations based on how much water they have been allocated-- never mind that that water no longer exists. Sad that it's taken this long for the feds to get serious about this disaster.
I would love to see another version of this video done where they are mining for all the lithium batteries. For some articles are saying that they go through 22 million liters of water per day to produce lithium batteries. Great video!
while 22 million gallons of water may seem like a lot its really not even 1% of 1% of the water used on a daily basis by the western states. More water is used daily to water golf courses just in southern California (Bakersfield to San Diego) than is used for mining lithium. Just putting it into perspective for you.
@@Josh-qv3zu do you know how many lithium mining plants there are across the us? And thank you for explaining that to me. And 22 million liters a day does sound like a lot and would it be enough to help out the ones that have zero water. Cuz when I multiply that on how much water they used per month or per year that seems like it a lot.
@@Domin8squad Well according to google theres only one operational lithium mine in the US and its at Thacker Pass in Northern Nevada. Research shows that it takes roughly 500,000 gallons of water to mine 1 ton of lithium. The mine in Nevada produces about 60,000 tons of lithium per year which comes out to about 30 billion gallons of water used daily which again isnt even 1% of 1% of the water used in the western states yearly. Remember 22 trillion gallons of water is used every year. Thats 22,000 billions. Lithium mining is the least of our worries when it comes to conserving water. Farming in the deserts is far far worse. and honestly needs to be cut down drastically. Farmers will go out of business some families will be ruined but it for the greater good. Save a couple 1000 farmers or protect the fresh water supply for the 80 million people living in the western states. Seems like an easy decision.
They've been knowing about water shortages for 20yrs and still haven't done anything
Good, america greatest country can't think for themselves.
A lot of people are changing their diets.
Lol its not america alone country like indonesia and other poor country still haven't solution
@@quiet451 Doesn't help the problem one bit
@@kakaraditya4705 I was talking about worldleaders/countries etc everywhere in each and every country
This is painfully true. I live in the Imperial Valley, CA and it's named after the local power and water utility company Imperial Irrigation District which has a monopoly over everyone here. Farmers use most of the water here to grow hay/alfalfa and they have the audacity to ask everyday customers to save. There are numerous solar panel facilities viable on the way to San Diego all of which the electricity is sold to other cities outside our own county. The people with power cater to the farmers 1st and the people 2nd, humans aren't eating hay so why the need to plant 100s of fields for it?
You know, we can easily grow hay and alfalfa in another part of the country with plenty of water. The Midwest should just pick up the slack so that California doesn't go dry.
I also live in the Imperial Valley. And the IID existing is a good thing. There is no monopoly. It's publicly owned which is why we have the lowest energy costs in the state. Is the watering of alfalfa a problem? Yes. Do we still need the water for other crops? Also yes. The Imperial Valley supplies the entire nation with winter produce every year because nowhere else can it be grown. The issue is not with the farmers but with consumption. If the public demands beef on this grand of a scale then farmers will continue to grow feed at the scale required. If the public cut back on beef consumption then water would not be allocated nearly as much as it is now to cattle feed. The problem is squarely with the consumers and not the farmers. The Imperial Valley is an Eden. 120 years ago it was a barren wasteland of desert sands. Because of irrigation it transformed into an agricultural powerhouse that exports food not just to the rest of the country but to other countries as well. It's less than 5% of the size of the Central Valley and yet the value of its produce is 12% of that of the Central Valley. That is a remarkable number considering the difference in size.
@@jonathanbowers8964 The Midwest isn't just some empty place where we can just start growing a bunch of extra crops. We already produce 93% of all ethanol in this country from our corn crops. Should we just stop doing that for poor old Cali?
@@jonathanbowers8964 That is the most unaware thing i have ever heard. We tried that remember silly? Its called the dust bowl. Someone did not pass history class
@@remster5284 Ethanol production to serve as a fuel replacement is also horrifically inefficient. Some studies have shown it to produce 24% more carbon than just drilling for more gas, in addition to using up tons of water and farmland. It should just stop.
US has far too much reliance on meat. Cattle industries are heavily subsidized. That's why fast food is so cheap and convenient, and why salads are so expensive. We need a shift in subsidies to support plant agriculture for human consumption over animal agriculture, and a cultural shift away from beef-heavy diets.
But then people start to get healthy and big pharma doesn’t like that
Well presented. I've been guilty of heavy beef consumption my entire life -until three weeks ago when the Cardiologist sat me down at 41 yrs old, to discuss my 2nd Heart CT scan results....
@@Jj-gi2uv Yeah, it probably is.
Check out Dr. John McDougall.
I have traveled a lot through the American west and the wanton waste of water from alfalfa farmers is incredible. You frequently see spray irrigation running at high noon in the desert. Probably more than 90% of the water evaporates. Such a waste of resources.
Your travel thru the American west doesn't provide you any real understanding of irrigation and your 90% claims are completely asinine.
Zac, insult folks all you want, it doesn’t make you less wrong. On any daylong drive through ag areas in the west, you will see folks irrigating at mid day
@@freeheeler09 learn how to read.
@@freeheeler09 you couldn't observe such waste from your car
@@tuckerbugeater if you can literally see what spraying around and feel that the heat and relative humidity means much of that will evaporate, yes, you can make an assumption that quite a lot of water is being wasted.
A whole lot goes into cattle. It’s clear that people aren’t going to give it up as easily. But even if the US cuts their consumption down, around to the global average, that could do a whole lot to help
You don't have to cut consumption, you just have to move things around. One option would be to eat more grass-fed beef and to move beef cattle farms to areas outside of the southwest
@@elizabethfrohn-hengst296 it'd be easier for people to cut consumption of beef then to uproot thousands of farmers from their homes and farm.
@@elizabethfrohn-hengst296 I'm not sure that is an option - by my understanding grass-fed beef requires significantly more land per tonne of meat produced (there are simply more calories in a field of corn than in a field of grass). Already something like 41% of the continental US is used for cattle and feed. To produce the same amount, but entirely grass-fed would require a higher proportion of land.
Which isn't really possible, both because not all land in the US is suitable for pasture and because...well...it's being used for other things, like growing other food, timber and national parks. As well as literally just cities and infrastructure.
@@elizabethfrohn-hengst296 you still have to cut consumption no matter what which will naturally happen if the source changed pastured raised just due to price difference. But we’d also need to protect forests from being razed for pasture as is what’s happening in Brazil. The level of beef consumption is untenable full stop.
@@elizabethfrohn-hengst296 deforest the habitable half of the continental US to make room for more cows who already use nearly half of the land in the continental US. Makes perfect sense. Or...we could eat Impossible burgers and drink oat milk.
Showing the people dispensing and essentially moving around the water in the different sizes of glasses is a good nod to how we move around water currently to meet our demands in this economy. Well done.
Alfalfa Farmer here- just wanted to drop my two cents.
The west grows so much alfalfa for several reasons.
1. Climate: Alfalfa has a deep tap root and can be very drought tolerant. It does require a lot of water but it is also one of the most productive crops on the planet. If you compare pounds produced per gallon of water used you will find that alfalfa is not a wasteful crop. Alfalfa also is extremely difficult to grow in areas that receive a lot of rainfall. It has to dry in the field for 3-7 days after being cut before it can be baled. If rain falls on the hay after it has been cut it loses a drastic amount of nutrients and begins to mold. This is why the desert is a perfect place to grow alfalfa. (Alfalfa is also native to the Middle East, so it is much more at home in the desert than many human food crops are).
2. Cattle: What most people don’t realize is that much of the nations beef supply begins with ranchers in the west. In the west, there are millions and millions of acres that are not suitable for crop production but they can still be used to produce beef. During the spring and summer months cattle graze and raise their young, utilizing land that is only useful for grazing. The winter months require hay to be fed in much of the west, hence the need for alfalfa and hay production. Because of the bulk nature of alfalfa it cannot be shipped long distances super efficiently, so it makes more sense to grow it close to where it is needed.
3. Economics: It is very difficult to get an accurate measurement of the economic impact of alfalfa. This is because the vast majority (in my area, about 90%) of alfalfa is grown and fed to cows on the same ranch. Because there is no point of sale, it’s very difficult to correctly value alfalfa’s contribution to state economies. But I feel comfortable in stating that 95% + of all cattle in the USA are fed alfalfa at some point, for many of them it is the sole source of nutrition in the winter.
I’m not attempting to change anyone’s mind, the numbers in this video don’t lie. But it is worth considering that cattle production in the west is an extremely efficient use of range and forest not suitable for crop production, and that the arid regions where alfalfa is grown are almost perfectly suited to alfalfa. Alfalfa thrives where other crops might struggle, so in that sense it’s worth asking if alfalfa is really all that wasteful, even if it isn’t directly used to feed humans.
There's no reason why we need to eat animals.
If farmers can grow alfalfa, I should be able to grow grass
@@imCXS-zh2yt They shouldn't be able to grow alfalfa
I’m very familiar with dairy products. Between the hay, corn for the cows(cow corn is different than people corn..they don’t use any pesticides basically less work and gets used in their feed) , cows drinking water, and then production and all that goes into that, flushing the lines multiple times, cleaning the tankers, the filler for bottles, and all around cleaning that goes into production and keeping the cows in a good environment, it takes a tremendous amount of water and effort
Also, the digestive process of cows produces methane, lots of methane, a green house gas even more effective than CO2
vegans have been saying this for decades
@@mushy470 and ignoring the fact that the majority of that water percolates and filters itself back into the ground.
@@P.rusticus doesn't take much for eutrophication
@@mushy470 and have been needing supplements because of poor nutrition for decades as well
You had me until the very end, where the solution is supposedly to pay for farmers to maybe if they want not grow some of one type of crop. That is not at all a solution, and you already explained why in the video.
the cost of water must reflect its true scarcity not remain subsidized for this to end.
I completely agree. This solution is clearly just delaying the inevitable.
Yep. The solution is incredibly simple. People just expect these problems to solve themselves without ever having to change anything about how they consume. And so they're scared of trying Impossible burgers and oat milk.
Its a solution. It would increase the amount of available water multiple times over
@@Noe11e the sun. These crops ARE meant to be grown in places with high amounts of sunlight. That’s why they’re grown there. Not that hard to understand.
Water heavy crops should only be grown in areas that get plenty of water, simple as. Grow the alfalfa in places like Western Washington, Oregon, and the East Coast. It doesn't have to be farmed in California.
Or, I don't know, reduce meat consumption?
@Chris Timmins good luck with convincing people of that.
Easier to ban alfalfa exports. Or ban the growing of super water intensive crops in drought afflicted areas like almonds.
Ever been to the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers? Billions of gallons of fresh water flow into the ocean unused every day. We have plenty of water it's just the ridiculous extreme environmentalists tell you not to use it and the Democrats stupidly listen.
@@christimmins1233 growing alfalfa where water isn't an issue or eating less meat which affects my daily life......... Man that's a tough one
@@_morgoth_ nuts are extremely healthy for humans. dont buy into the lie
Here in Arizona, the state (aka our greedy governor) has lease a ton of land and water for a Saudi Arabian company to grow alfalfa for themselves. It’s irritating that the politicians in these states that are at the biggest risk for a water crisis only seem to care about profit in the short run rather than water conservation.
I'm from Michigan, where we have a ton of water and I remember going to Moab, Utah on July one summer and I was amazed that every house had a green lawn in front of it. It was the middle of the desert and their lawns were much greener than our lawns in Michigan where we had plenty of water to do so! That was 2003 so I don't know if it's changed but I thought those people we're nuts, wasting water in a way most people even in water-rich Michigan don't.
That's not the point residential water only uses 6% of the entire west so even if they didn't have lawns the same issue would still persist.
@@Eminence_1337 Spoken like someone who uses 1% themself.
@@zUJ7EjVD Those aren't laws, those are HOA rules.
Basically, having new residential development in many places in Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona is nuts! The land is cheap, the houses are cheap... yeah, sure. But the cost of supplying these communities with water, electricity, and food will be environmentally unsustainable.
For the record - the "markets" logic for housing development is nuts not only in the US. Around my home town in Europe, housing dev. consumes good agricultural land. Which will become a valued commodity under climate change.
I live in Utah. Our state governor owns an alfalfa farm, and last year he told us to "pray for rain" amidst drought.
Lots of state govt corruption here is making everything worse...
Amen! Our land developer politicians will wring the last dollar along with the last drop and then leave us with violent foreign owned slums, at least in the valleys.
Your first mistake is living in Utah.
@@joeybaseball7352 😂😂 isn't that the truth
Fallowing is basically just paying a ransom to farmers for a fair share of water. The farmers aren't paid with money manifested from thin air.
There are more water efficient farming methods that can be used, such as direct-burial drip irrigation systems, indoor or greenhouse hydro/aquaponics, rainwater swale irrigation, etc. The solution isn't to pay rural farmers a ransom, it's to help fund them changing over to a more sustainable method of water utilization.
I'm tired of "solutions" that expect something to magically change without behavioral changes. I haven't eaten beef or pork in over 5 years and I've transitioned my diet to being well over 50% vegetarian in the past 2 years. I've only had plant-based milk for nearly a year. Either we give up something small like our favorite foods, or we give up something big like water or our planet. You can't get meaningfully different outputs without significantly different inputs.
Ever heard of the water cycle ? Thanks to it we get unlimited fresh water. You learn something new everyday!
The problem is that individual choices like yours, while intelligent, never solve systemic problems. From a fellow vegetarian
I knew agriculture would be the biggest culprit. You cannot grow lettuce and carrots in a desert without an ungodly amount of water. It was all a mirage that should never have happened.
Nestle too.
Fruits and vegetables are not the issue. It's all the crops grown, all the land wasted (half the continental U.S.), for non-human consumption.
Do we need to eat animal products in order to be happy and healthy? No. All of this is done by choice. We can make different choices.
Were we watching the same video?
We should be having farms in the coast really
@@brianrcVids you like Corn? That corn is grown in the Midwest. Well most the corn here goes into manufacturing but sweet corn is what you eat.
And what’s worse is that some farmers use it at subsidized rates. A few years ago, in Arizona, Ducey’s government signed a deal with a Saudi company where they could tap into groundwater at rates well below market level.
China can’t even clean up their own mess why are they taking our alfalfa.
You guys are making some great content. Keep it up!
Great tenor and pace in this. Despite the bluntness of the problem, we aren't bludgeoned with the facts. Touché!
Selfishness is a national trait of America. None of them are going to give up even the smallest convenience without a fight. That includes beef.
Money is god, greed is the value.. "We, the people" isn't really true, more like "Me, the individual"
You expect them to give up good things in life so China and India can continue to increase co2 polution over the next 10 years? How about stop having so many kids. If there was only 1 or 2 billion people, there would be enough resources for everyone
Judgement is a national trait of all Europeans. None of them are going to stop pretending their superior to everyone else. Don't worry, if Russia decides to invade Europe, we'll ignore your attitudes and rescue you again.
and it's not like the beef alternatives are that inconvenient anyway. In 2022 all it really means is reaching your arm over 3 more feet to grab ground Impossible instead of ground beef.
@@iamthepinkylifter Its the same price, less fatty and drier. Ive read the food value and it contains alot more salt than meat. Theres just nothing going for it
There are so many signs telling us to gradually shift our diets towards plant-based... Unfortunately there's little incentive for companies to encourage that, since it would decrease their production.
Precisely. Also, people that just don't want to change because of their 'addiction' and 'loyalty' to meat. People just don't want to leave their food comfort zone and begin giving far fetched excuses such as "Grass fed cows don't have any environmental impact" and "It's part of the governments ploy" etc. When in fact the leading cause of forest deforestation is for cattle grazing.
We need to be thinking about long term, sustainable agriculture and diet, not paying people not to work.
Well that the thing, most "farmers" aregoing out of business so more corptations and imports are taking over last year we imported 2.9 billion pounds of beef.
thank you! as someone who lives in the west, this is exactly what I wished more people knew about.
My well gives me 3 gallons a minute(residential permit). Yet I use maybe ten gallons a day. I have fish pools, but they are also covered and protected from evaporation. Then my overflow goes into a drip system and nutrients for other edible landscaping. It’s soooo much setup and labor. Once the system is operating though, it’s easy to maintain.
I like beef, all my county (orphan co) is bovine, but it’s becoming more necessary to diversify.
Thanks for reading.
Utahn here- my family owns an alfalfa field. Water here is all about shares. Water shares. You either buy a share or lease a share. Water is in two categories- agriculture and residential. We lease water shares from farmers who own “extra shares” if there’s extra water. Our field has been fallow for 3 years now bc we can’t get the water shares- all the farmers are selling residential shares. They can sell residential for more money than agriculture shares for us. Farmers are now selling left and right to house developers, who then bring in more residential lots so it’s even less likely to get agri shares.
To all those saying that farmers should pay- we do. Water is expensive and breaking even from all the expenses is rare. The less green space, the more houses built, the more roads and asphalt,the hotter it gets.
I’m not saying that farming is not part of the problem bc it is, but farmers aren’t the villains here. We’re struggling. We grow food to feed the cows that you eat. Also, the farmland is slowly being pushed out to most hostile regions by suburban sprawl. We’re in a viscous cycle that keeps getting worse.
all people have to do to help is stop eating meat lol
@@henri-julien never
Water is cheap, I pay $2usd for a cubic meter of fresh water. Im not complaining
@@-p2349 🤦♂smh
@@oHaiKuu We forgive you your ignorance
Another important aspect is how inefficient current watering practices for a lot of crops are. Such as center pivot, one of the methods shown in the video, is terribly inefficient. This method allows good portion to not actually water the plant bc of evaporation and other factors. Drip irrigation is much more efficient but more expensive but I’d rather spend a bit more on the system than have no water at all. Like y’all said, It’s gonna be a hard sell to have people change their diets but improving the systems of how we grow it could make a big difference.
How about we ban growing the crops that take up 1/3 of the water in the drought stricken region? There are a other areas of the country where they could be grown and not affect the water table so drastically.
Industry is efficient. Water rights out west are better for business, land is cheap, and the weather forgiving. Moving could make the cost go up so that it wouldn’t be worth it. Enterprise will always take the path of least resistance. We would have to construct barriers to making their practices viable
@@OurayTheOwl it's not moving, it's changing what you grow. And the water rights is a huge issue. Farmers are known to just run the water if they haven't used their allotment to prevent cuts.
@@OurayTheOwl okay then lets construct the barriers :)
@@ericw.1620 I’m trying 😩
how about we ban beef production, its bad for your health and the environment. 90%+ of cropland is used to grow animal feed worldwide.
If all alfalfa farms used sprinklers instead of flood irrigation that would save 3/4 of the water runoff, I live next to an alfalfa field and once they open the gate to flood irrigate for the first 8-15 hours water is not flowing onto the field it is being drained right into the drain ditch so even if they blocked the water runoff while flooding the field they could save 1/2 of it from bypassing the field and going straight into the drain.
What drain? The remaining water is moved on to the next farmer downstream. Drains might even be a good idea if they went into covered reservoirs.
Not sure that makes sense...but if so they may be doing it on purpose...because the more water they use the more the are allocated the next year...they literally incentivize wasting water...
The drains return the water back to the river in many irrigation districts, so it's not entirely a loss. But yes there is still water lost to evaporation and seepage.
Again with the completely uninformed claims.. Do you understand that it takes electricity to run sprinklers? Flood irrigation requires significantly less resources and sprinkler irrigation has significantly higher evaporation losses.
When water goes into the ground, do you think it just ceases to exist at that point? Do you know what a water table is?
I love the video presentation. Easy to understand, informative and presentation is really great 👍🏻
Literally waiting for a video like this.
Kudos to VOX team for bringing the truth about water consumption to people.
Great info, but one key highlight that always baffles me.... Mass water intensive agriculture in a DESERT, like doesn't head make people scratch their heads in confusion is always beyond me.
Somebody needs to unpave quite a few places that have become blight problems. It would open up quite a bit of new farmland in places that get rain. Unpave lots of abandoned Walmart parking lots. There are watermains right in the streets.
@@b.a.d.2086 So true, we forget because of a how car travel centered cultured we have in North America how much space is wasted on that. Sadly only so much can be done to overhaul infrastructure.
I mean, is that really that rare of an occurrence throughout human history? (Mesopotamia, Egypt, etc...)
@@havegottogitgud1864 I see your point, however those civilizations weren’t supporting half as many people.
@@fuchsia02 Iraq nowadays has the same size and population as California.
I'm from SE Asia and I never understood the need to water lawns. If its dry season we just let them turn brown. They will grow back once the wet season starts.
Also, lawn/grass isn’t even good, you could be using the space for much better uses, including for natural fauna
What do you mean "WE"? Don't make statements speaking for all southeast asians. We are not all like you.
In this part of the United States, there is no wet season
@@merge9585 then don't grow grass.
@@hermitcrack9091 if we don't grow grass then what will we do with our lawnmowers?
Beautifully shot, love the little diorama idea! Pretty reductive though -those precetages are a bit more debated, not so cut and dry. Human water consumption in cities is also being highly criticized as needing to be reduced, not just getting more water from farmers to use. Mike Young (water economist) also makes an argument that we need to be leaving water for our environments (for the river, birds and animals)... Thank you for the vid
There's another water waste that might be worth looking into. Evaporation.
The truth of the matter is, certain land geometries reduce evaporation.
It's like if you get a towel soaking and just throw it on the floor in a mound. It'll stay wet, particularly in the middle for quite a while.
Compare that to laying a wet towel on the floor... it'll stay wet quite a bit longer, but since it's right up against the floor, the bottom tends to stay wet (since there isn't great air circulation under the towel).
Compare that to hanging the towel on the line, and it will dry EXTREMELY fast. It's got both sides of the towel exposed to air, and the air is free flowing.
So how can this be done in the West to conserve water? Well, you want to somehow do 2 things.
1. You want to get the water from where it falls to where it pools as quickly and efficiently as possible.
2. You want to reduce the air flow as much as possible.
One way you can do this is by planning farms runoff better. They need their rainfall, of course... there's no getting around that, but much of their rainfall just evaporates anyway. If you strategized channels to drain to the nearest aquifer as quickly as possible, you will not only save evaporation and replentish aquifers, but you will also potentially have an underground well to pump from and water your plants more regularly.
Can I just say I love these presentation from Vox so much ! This is what video all about, visual to reality. And a little bit touch of art. Perfection.
Once again a great short documentary. The visuals in your videos are always simple and on point, yet very well made. And the all thing is well documented while being efficiently vulgarized and explained (speaking as a foreigner with very limited skills when it comes to the English language). The content of the video in itself is of course much less pleasing :(
Wow, this Video is So Inferior to the 1 'Some More News' made
Amazing video ,Great story telling ,from problem statement to inference
We grow very little alfalfa in Missouri by comparison but have robust beef production. But we have a seasonal cycle we have to respect.
Don’t forget how the large soda companies use their access to fill tanker trucks from residential water facilities, then bottle it and sell it as bottles water for profit.
Why? Do you think the amount they use is in any way significant compared to agricultural use? Did you watch the video and somehow miss the entire point??
That makes up effectively 0% of total water consumption. The whole point of the video is that agriculture is the entire problem.
It’s always struck me as ironic that our most critical resource is basically unmanaged.
It's worse than unmanaged, in the entire Western United States, you are REQUIRED to use water. Oh and it has to be used for "productive" purposes such as agriculture. It can't be left in the river for the fish or for other people downriver. If you don't use it all, the amount you can use is reduced by law
@Mark Ferenc It's much more complicated than that, and each state has different protections/ requirements under the law. There are extensive federal and state protections in California, for example, for various important salmon species.
Western water law is the problem. It's based on senior water rights. These rights were given to the first people who used the water. In many cases it was miners and that has been passed down through the generations. Things have changed so much in the last 150 years since senior water rights were allocated. This has to be addressed or nothing will improve.
It's stunning to realise that beef/dairy accounts for more than twice the water consumption of the entire Western US Residential, Commercial and Industrial sector
But instead of asking ppl too completely get off a beef/dairy diet, wouldn't it be better to have them reduce their consumption by a fourth or a third??? That would be enough water savings to cater to the entire Residential OR Commercial/Industrial sector
The only way to do that though is to put a tax surcharge on beef/dairy. That way, if a family budgets $400 a month for beef/dairy, now they only get 3/4th of the quantity for that money. The earned income by the State could go towards things like fallowing....🤔
Hi, LA water district, I declare myself a western farmer, and since this year I'm watering 0% of my non-existent farmland, I will take all the compensation money thank yoooouuuu~~~
Interestingly some of these deserts weren't deserts a 150 years ago. Understanding how ecology and farming can work hand in hand will be our only way forward.
LA and San Diego were from the founding of the cities.
Oh really? Tell us, which of those areas weren't deserts 150 years ago?? 😅😅
im not saying to cut out all meat, but americans seriously need to have less dependency on meat and dairy in their diet, more fruits, vegetables and grains, my friend visited the states and felt sick after a week because she struggled to find anywhere that served fresh fruit and vegetables instead of fast food
Good Point.
It was as easy as going to the grocery store and buying fruits. There’s no reason to serve fruits at restaurants. Your friend is a little ❄️
umm, you don't know Americans. 1/3 of the population can't even regulate their calorie intake and are obese.
Likely, a huge factor why covid deaths were so bad in the US.
Oh, I despise fast food as any grown, mature adult. But your friend could've had fresh fruits and veggies in the U.S. They're these magical things called "farmer's markets" and "groceries" where one can buy so many fresh fruits and veggies it's obscene. I think your friend from abroad is a bit daft if she (or you) couldn't figure that one out...
@@Luboman411 I think she was probably on vacation and was visiting restaurants for her meals.
This information is much needed. Thank you.
Interesting point. I wonder if that water usage breakdown holds true for every region or water basin though. It would be interesting to see that.
Shout out to the art director here! Nicely done.
Thank you.
I wish the government would stop subsidizing beef and cow milk and start subsidizing plant-based meats and non-dairy milks which use significantly less water.
Welcome riots and civil unrest. Any politician that does what you say would never get elected again
This is bad farm policy. Apparently, the growers of fodder are better represented than the rest of us. First, the fact that farms are allowed to use irrigation systems that expose a large amount of the water they use to evaporation is absolutely criminal. I imagine many farmers are also growing water intensive crops, because they are profitable at the price they are paying for water. Obviously, the more of this land to go fallow, the better, but the waste needs to be cut out. While I have little sympathy for the farmers that have been gaming the system, the government is going to have to compensate everybody they put out of business.
Such a great presentation of today's water crisis. Thnx Vox!
I love that policy that determines whether or not humans can survive is swayed by the persuasive argument "BUT I WANNNNT ITTTTT!"
That’s what LA said to Owens Valley in the late 1800s/early 1900s, regarding their water.
That is the definition of "policy" in places where people vote - it's the thing people want. Why else would it be done?
@@marksizer3486 Because we might not have enough water in the desert to survive? Sometimes mob rules don't, you know, work.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.... Beef should be a delicacy, not a staple.
We should stop killing other sentient creatures because we prefer the taste
Where is the segment discussing use it or lose it clauses? I think it is pretty essential to descuss when talking about why farmers use so much water.
Aka the segment Last Week Tonight did
We need to stop subsidizing beef for fast food restaurants. It's fast food. Those prices are completely unattached to the reality of the costs.
20 years into a drought:
_"Hey guys, should we conserve water ?"_
The next asteroid can't come soon enough.
Only if it wipes out the American southwest
sometimes the music compliments the animation or the animation compliments the music. I love it when I see someone that manages to do both.
Did that grown man just say cheeseburgers are his favourite food? 🤣🤣
This is a pricing problem. The cost of water usage (drying out an entire region) needs to be reflected in prices. It will be less profitable, companies will raise prices to consumers, and we’ll consume less.
Next step: lab grown beef, and protein crickets..
On serious note: they need to have way more vertical farms (it saves like 90% of the water used).. I'm sure billy gates will be doing that in the near future while owning the most farm land in the US
I’m will not live in a pod and I will not eat the bugs
Rather shoot myself than eat bugs
@@Aria0101 you eat bugs already, they're in most industrialized products.
Also, in powder form made into pancakes? You wouldn't know it.
But c'mon, where's the diy mammal cell culture 3d printer already?
@@Ewr42 I have no problem with eating bugs in extremely minimal quantities that I can’t even see
@@Ewr42 pancakes are only good from scratch anyways
Deeply insightful, highly interesting and earth-shaking discoveries to the general public.
That is Vox.
The first study linked in the description literally says fallowing would have a "negligible effect" on water consumption. 10/10 reporting.
Just say the truth (outlined in the study you use as reference), people need to consume less meat
Apparently we’re in a drought and we are limited to watering our lawn. My local hospital has an enormous beautiful green lawn which I waters almost daily.
Even if the global demand for meat, and subsequently alfalfa, go down significantly, the farmers will just switch to other crops that shouldn't be grown in a desert.
What's worse is their transition to other crops will inevitably be subsidized with federal bail-outs because those tiny populations have disproportionate political influence.
The long term solution is to not only reduce/replace meat consumption but to ban growing crops in that region, that aren't native and need irrigation.
People need to stop thinking farmers are these kind hearted country people only trying to slive off the land for their families. They are businessman trying to make profit.
There isn't a crop that exists that can grow in the amount of summer rain in the west. Most of Utah, Colorado, and the rest of the Rockies get their water from snow pack that melts into reservoirs. We irrigate with snowmelt water. If you ban irrigation, there will be food shortages, not just in the west. California grows a huge percentage of food for the US. Cut back on the most water intensive crops, like alfalfa, but not growing anything at all is a terrible idea. Unless everyone in the Midwest wants to give up their homes and land and replace them with farms.
I understand what you're saying but you need to look at things on a nationwide perspective, limiting the crop growth in the south west will cause environmental issues for the rest the country, places like the midwest would have to cut down more forests to support more people. What i would do is grow more desert grain (triticale) even if it's not native otherwise a good situation would large desalination plans for the long term and piper water from other areas in the short and moving as much as sustainable to other areas. Also increasing the yields of urban farming.
@@elizabethfrohn-hengst296 I think simply cutting back on the meat consumption would already do a lot, without having to eliminate agriculture in the desert. The food being grown go directly to sustaining humans.
@@nunyabiznes33 the issue is there if peo0le would be willing to eat the grain that would grow without all that water
Or...... Just eat less meat? You don't have to stop altogether but geeze, once or twice a week is absolutely doable.
If the US were to lower their consumption down to the global average, you could still enjoy cattle, but you would be making a difference
This video, combined with the one on the Resnicks' in California by Nick Johnson, gives a very important account of how water is growing more scarce due to agribusiness usages, and how the situation is getting out of hand. We simply do not have leadership at the political level to cope with the problems presented by climate change. Johnson gives the example of Dianne Feinstein trading favors with the Resnicks to co-opt Californian cities' rights to water. When things get totally out of hand, and likely only then, will candidates take climate solutions into account, or run on platforms that call for changing the ways we live, and do something to limit farmers such as the Resnicks. As for inhibiting beef output, that's also a tall order, and one which calls for a kind of belt-tightening by those across the world who enjoy eating beef, something I would have trouble with myself. (I'm a cancer survivor, and need a certain amount of protein.)
As I've said before the western water compact is a huge issue it was made 100 years ago and one of the things that needs to be redone. Also better irrigation practices. Obviously growing food in the desert is weird to begin with.
You're correct. However don't underestimate politicians and "growth." Utah is bending over to "attract" big tech and more government facilities. We're already a huge low level nuclear waste facility. The CIA mops up a good portion of the Jordan river and the gentrification in every little building spot is appalling. If I were younger I'd go to places like Detroit and start plowing when all the burned and abandoned homes were. Kids with lighters get bored around plants.
How is growing crops that need sun where the most sun is “weird”?
@@rorypaul153 because the climate in general while well suited doesn’t get sufficient long term rain. Agriculture uses the majority of the water which in itself isn’t an issue but we don’t get sufficient water to meet those needs.
Is not weird, crops can grow year round
@@ElDredlord context here I see is needed I’m talking about from a water standpoint there was never enough water for wide scale farming for long drawn out periods of time. It is a desert. It seemed perfectly reasonable 100 years ago but with so many thirsty crops reliant on very few water sources something will give.
I think using “smart irrigation” techniques such as automated valves that open and close on their own or water recycling and reuse systems would help farmers save a lot of water. Even something as simple as fixing leaky pipes would conserve water
Lots of water companies lose a huge amount of water everyday because they don’t want to fix their pipes :/ so I agree, that should be a minimum conservation measure to ensure a baseline for other policies to work on
Totally irrelevant to farming, irrigation water is rarely piped in significant distance from the point at which farmers have control of it and you're not going to collect the water used to irrigate and reuse it.
Your thinking highlights the disconnect between city dwellers and the reality of their food sources.
you're also forgetting about how water rights laws largely work in western states. Water conservation means using less water, which means by law the amount of water you get to use next year is reduced. Nobody has the incentive to conserve water in the Western U.S. This is first and foremost a problem with bad policy
In Colorado, summer water demand is 4x winter demand. That's how much water goes to keep Kentucky blue grass alive in a high plains desert.
The best solution isn’t to cut back personal water use, it’s to solve the problem and build water desalination plants along the west coast.
Seems like getting rid of beef entirely would probably be good. Not exactly a moral industry anyway.
Fallowing just sounds like holding water hostage for ransom. What I want to know is, are we talking about local farms or are these farms owned by mega corporations that are trying to meet a bottom line?
nearly all "local" farms are either owned by or under contract with a "mega corporation". They have a near total (as in - literally - 99 percent) monopoly on meat, dairy, and egg production in the US. Almost every farmer on this continent is beholden to their bottom line.