AndrewWiggin95

I don't think that you're wrong about reducing consumer use, clearly any water saved is a good thing and consumer/business use takes up about 15-20% of water use. It also is the easiest thing to regulate, monitor and adjust in order to put a band-aid on the problem. Long term though, it seems to the obvious move is to cut back on our biggest expense (agriculture, winning out at 80% of water use ) and to look for ways to increase water access (things like desalination plants and waste water reclamation programs).However, having just starting to look into this I am missing some information. Do you think restricting consumer use is capable of fixing the problem? Additionally what do you think the problems with the previously mentioned strategies are? Edit: Grammar etc..

Hello! I'm not sure if this AMA is active still but I'm actually working on writing a paper on the subsidization of water for agricultural use in California and it's impact on the drought. In your opinion, do you think cutting subsidies that allow water to be obtained by farmer's below market price could be a possible longterm solution lowering water use in California and encouraging investment in more sustainable practices?

It's a pretty generally accepted number, despite the fact that it's an estimate. Most states with a strong agriculture system follow a similar model (about 70%). The water use over time is complicated but appears to have been increasing slightly in the last 15 years, but seems mostly steady when you take a wider look at it (back to 1960). Here's a study that explains it. Check out the agricultural water use section on page 2 and the fist sentence of the conclusion. Edit: also if your a geek and are interested in water use and efficiency the graphs on plant/ water use are really telling. Paired with this you can kind of see where the money is.