How much water do you think should be allocated for farming, for urban devlopment and for recreation?

Question

Ok but why do you feel this way?

Answer 1

my question was better,

just no answerts.

AND WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE SAYING LOLL

:)

Answer 2

Its all on where you are livilng so most of the water should go to the housing and farming industry

Answer 3

All of it.

Answer 4

Definitely a full bottle.

:)

Answer 5

Hi Dominique,

I hate to give non-definitive answers, but sometimes there is no other answer.

This is a question that depends upon several considerations that can only be answered on a location-by-location basis.  

A location may involve more than one city or county.  It might involve more than one state, and even more than one country.  And a location most certainly will involve more than one "stakeholder", which might be a developer, city administration, environmental group, residents, and/or water control agency.

A location may need to maintain a specific water level or water temperature in order to preserve aquatic life or recreation economics might need to be factored in.  

For an example, in southern California (where one source of their water is from the Colorado river) consideration must be given to the need for water in at least 4 other states and Mexico.  Another source of southern California water is from the streams that feed into Mono Lake, where consideration must be given to the preservation of aquatic life AND to maintaining the level of the lake in order to preserve breeding grounds for several species of birds that might otherwise perish.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, state water resources agencies, county and city planning commissions and leaders all must consider how much water is available, what or who uses it and for what purpose it is used.  These considerations come into play (or should) whenever there is a plan to change or build something that will use water and/or in some other way affect the availability of water.

In some areas, there might be enough water that the construction of a new home or a small development will not greatly affect the availability of water; however, I don't think that there are many of these areas around now-a-days.

In this day and age, water in most areas is such a precious commodity that organizations, companies and the public literally fight over it.

Stakeholders include environmental organizations that want to ensure that we are not developing in areas or increasing the use of water where the additional use will deplete the water available to maintain our natural surroundings and native aquatic life; farmers who want to ensure that they receive the water that they need (at the times of year that they need it) to maintain their livelihood and to be able to provide food for the public; cities and counties that want homes built to increase their revenue base to let them do more for the residents of that city/county (such as, public services, maintenance of roads, libraries, schools, etc.); developers who want to build to maintain their livelihood; some businesses who need water as, or for production of, their product; and the public who want water to drink, to use, and for recreational activities, such as fishing, boating, swimming, water skiing, etc.

All of these stakeholders have legitimate concerns with the availability and consumption of water in their area.

In those areas where there is less water than what each interest wants, concessions must be made.  In that many of these different interests are not able to come to equitable agreements to satisfy everyone's needs the courts are used.

Now, with all that said, to answer your question, I think the amount of water that should be allocated for farming, urban development and recreation is what water is that amount that will equitably provide for each interest, given the economic factors and amount of water available.

I feel this way, because I believe that we are all entitled to our "fair" share.  The difficult part is determining what is "fair".

I hope this helps.

Hiking Tony

Answer 6

Without food nothing else matters but there needs to be more emphasis on conservation of water, as well as land and the water we use for recreation. All can be utilized as long as we care for them. In areas where water is at a premium, though, agriculture should have consideration provided that one isn't attempting a rice patty in the desert.

Answer 7

All these depends on what kind of crop for farming (Paddy needs 40 acre inches while pomegrante needs only minimum); the population in Urban area( more population means more water); and what kind of recreation (water pool games need more while carooms need only a glass of water to drink)

Answer 8

This COMPLETELY depends on what state you live in and what the main sources of jobs are.  

I live in Idaho, in the very heartland of potato country.  97% of the water used here goes for agriculture.  2% goes for mining and industry.  1% is used by homeowners (lawns, toilets, showers, ect).

Water that is used for agriculture can be used for recreation.  Recreational water does not have a seperate catigory in my state.  People do plenty of boating, fishing, watering skiing, ect around here.

California is the only state that uses more water for agriculture than Idaho does.  Agriculture is a tremendous user of water.  Of course if you want to eat, you don't quibble over the use of water for agriculture.

Out of the United States water used for agriculture, it breaks down this way:

California uses 22.3%

Idaho uses 16.3%

Colorado uses 8.9%

Texas uses 5.9%

All the other states combind use the other 46.6% of the Nations agricultural water.

Water of course must be allocated on a state by state basis.  I grew up in Western Washington.  Your only worry there as a farmer was if it was going to STOP raining.  In Eastern Washington, they use water to irregate.  It wouldn't even make sence to have the same rules apply the entire state over.

~Garnet

Homesteading/Farming over 20 years