by MonteQuest » Tue 26 Oct 2004, 20:05:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'M')onte, I read that item about cattle to suggest that a 7% reduction in meat consumption will result in a 100% increase in water available to urban areas. Is that correct?
No. Alfalfa is fed to cattle, dairy cows, horses, goats, sheep, etc. Cattle are also fed grain; oats, corn, sorghum, silage, etc. A 7% reduction in agricultural irrigation in the
West, would free up enough water to provide a 100% increase in urban use in the
West. This crop is also the
most water intensive, requiring 6 acre feet/year as opposed to .5 acre feet/year for lettuce, which is why there is so much potential. Agriculture has been the biggest beneficiary of the Colorado's water because the farmers got there first. Western water law has its roots in the concept that whoever could put the water to beneficial use first, had first rights to it. Cheap, federally subsidized water grows alfalfa, which is fed to beef cattle in the seven states of the Colorado River Basin. And, like I stated earlier, these seven states, including those portions of the states lying outside the basin and not receiving Colorado River water, produce only 13 percent of the total value of the nation's beef. The Reclamation Act of 1902 was enacted to help settle the West, not provide a subsidy in perpetuity for about 100,000 ranchers. Go figure.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."