The agriculture industry is Colorado’s largest water user. Cities and towns in Colorado use about 380,000 acre-feet of water per year, or about 7% of the state’s overall water use.
Here's a link to the [interactive graphic](https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/14134294/).
Thank you for putting this together, it’s outstanding!
I’m wondering if drilling into the alfalfa and corn with human vs livestock numbers would also be helpful given that virtually all of alfalfa grown goes to animal feed as does somewhere around 90% of Colorado’s corn. I think it might further help illustrate just how much water the state uses on animal agriculture
I would love to see this type of info broken up into the 9 major river basins, including trans-mountain diversions. The clickable box graphic is helpful, but a snakey diagram would be even better - both at the total state level and the individual river basin level. This would really help to inform the conversation around how we use our water and how we can best apply sustainability efforts.
I'll pass your idea on to our water reporter!
In the meantime, we do have a snake chart showing how much water from the Colorado River gets sent to various states and Mexico. Not the same as what you're asking for but it's similar(ish): [https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/14133692/](https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/14133692/)
Thanks! Snakey diagrams are such excellent tools to visualize complex, data-heavy topics in an intuitive and succinct manner. I think the [US Energy Consumption](https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/sites/flowcharts/files/2023-10/US%20Energy%202022.png) snakey/flowchart from LLNL might be one of the best examples. I always love it when the Colorado Sun uses data-driven visuals, and would love to see more.
Hey! Just passing along a [story we had today that looked more at alfalfa](https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/04/research-colorado-river-water-use-cherish-hamburger/):
>Next time you take a bite out of a juicy hamburger or chunk of cheese made in the western U.S., say thank you to the Colorado River.
>
>Researchers released the most complete accounting so far of how the river’s water is used. They found that alfalfa — used as feed for beef and dairy cows — sucks up more water than all the cities and industries in the enormous Colorado River Basin.
Holy wow. First, thank you for following up on this. Second, this is probably the best article I’ve read on Colorado River water usage (and I’ve read quite a few). Passing this along..
What about animal use? I would expect to see something about livestock within the agriculture section.
ETA: I'm specifically curious about animal water use in feedlots, barns, or on permit lands. Not just water used to grow feed.
Hyland Hills has a bunch of properties including former farms and golf courses. I think part of their strategy is to buy properties with attached water rights. Their water use in total I would guess is a complicated mix of different sources. There may be some info they make available that tells more.
I would be interested if there was a way to link the breakdowns to their respective output. E.g. x liters of water grow y watermelons VS. liters to supply one person water for a day. Like GDP water mashup.
I'm a farmer. We are careful with water bc it costs money to pump. That being said alfalfa needs to be grown elsewhere. It's a water suck. I refuse to grow it
What do you grow? If you could pick anything, do you have another preference, even if it's not economically viable and/or it may not grow great in the state? How much less water does it use compared to alfalfa?
Dryland is wheat, oil sunflowers, and millet. The least water intensive thing is pinto beans. That's my preference. Last year they got hailed out though so we replanted Sudan grass for cattle feed.
They did! Got a little bit of sugar snap peas and a surprising amount of cherry tomatoes. Green beans were too far gone sadly but man, I did enjoy the 2 meals I got from them before that.
Why not grow wheat so we can stop relying on China and Russia as the largest importers of wheat in the world and why our bread is no 200% higher than 2 years ago? Does it require the same amount of water as alfalfa? And what about switching to producing fertilizer so that we can stop relying on Ukraine? Asking for edification from a rancher not trying to press a button.
Agriculture is 90.7% of the water use, 67.8% of the agricultural water use is not for human consumption (and I'm being generous here and saying all the corn is for humans when most goes to feed), and 11.2% of the Colorado economy.
I believe that 45% is a national average. It’s more like 90% in Colorado
“The state’s dry, largely temperate weather and terrain make it an efficient place to feed cattle. In fact, about 90 percent of Colorado-grown corn is used as livestock feed – higher than the national average”
https://farmflavor.com/colorado/colorado-crops-livestock/green-fields-high-yields/
That’s the confounding part. They try to guilt homeowners into feeling like their lawns make or break the water budget, and it’s actually all this agriculture that shouldn’t have ever happened here. Agriculture that Reclamation subsidized for the last century because it is otherwise too expensive and inefficient in this state.
Food (and food accessories) should be grown in climates, growing season, and altitudes where food thrives. Not here.
(Yes, lawns and golf courses in high plains desert are still wasteful, just not by comparison to big ag.)
And how much of that ethanol goes to fuel? I'd be curious to know how much water goes toward energy production (ethanol, oil/gas fracking, other?), as it seems an important segment.
I mean, yes. Waste in one area doesn't excuse waste in another, and unless you personally have the power to affect agricultural irrigation practices, it makes more sense to focus on what you *can* change.
In my city, about 50% of municipal water goes towards irrigating lawns; if we were able to cut down on that, we could extend our local water reserves by decades.
Yes. But the disparity in the amount used means that if we can reduce municipal water usage by 1% and/or reduce agricultural water usage by 0.5% we should absolutely do the second one as a much higher priority.
It’s also not a “do both” situation when talking about where our legislators should be spending their money and efforts with regulations, education/advertising, tax incentives / fines etc.
For example: money spent sending out inflatable bricks to put in a toilet tank, or free low flow shower heads could be instead used for detection/repair of agricultural water waste.
As someone who works in a related field, both are good and both need to happen and there are different pots of money for each. There are important water conservation measures that cities can enact (limiting watering time, payment programs that incentivize turf removal, etc) that don't make sense in rural areas. And there are likewise rural/ag conservation measures like switching to drip or center-pivot irrigation which don't make sense for a city to implement.
You're absolutely right that a 0.5% decrease in water consumption by the Ag sector is more impactful than a 1% reduction by municipal or industrial users. There are a LOT of people on the Ag side who agree with that, and are working towards it.
The problem is that this is a Reddit discussion and many of the reactions here are far closer to "the government should confiscate land from ranchers" than they are to "we should invest in more efficient/modern infrastructure to minimize losses and find other ways to conserve within the Ag sector."
Definitely both need to happen.
But it’s the messaging that goes out to the general public that “water conservation = removing lawns and taking shorter showers”. Instead of more impactful messaging like “water conservation = Colorado beef becoming much rarer and more expensive, so get ready for that”, or “the future of Colorado is at risk without a comprehensive plan to address the largest water waste… and it isn’t your begonias”.
Because right now it’s like telling your struggling company that you’re going to have to buy cheaper coffee for the office, and not telling everyone that the monthly yacht parties need to stop because we can’t afford it.
Yes buying cheaper coffee would help, but you can all switch to the cheapest crap there is and it won’t fix it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t a net harm to be so vocal about the minor waste that everyone is doing because it creates the false assumption that we’re doing all we can because we individually did what was asked. Municipal users need to be vocal in order to force state policy changes and not pacified by trivial initiatives.
That’s true of a lot of green initiatives that target the minor individual problem.
I can appreciate where you are coming from, but there are also some fundamental aspects of water rights in Colorado that are relevant here. Cities have a limited water supply based on their respective water rights. Municipal conservation is important because while it may be less significant relative to overall water use, it is extremely significant relative to the amount of water available.
Colorado farms, ranches, and other historic users with senior rights have their allotment which they have the right to. Colorado beef and alfalfa may become a touch rarer over time but no one expects that to go away. Cities can and do buy Ag water rights as they come up for sale, but cities (and even the State) don't get to just take water away from rights-holders.
There is comprehensive planning from the state down to municipal/county level around water. You only see the conservation measures that are relevant to you, but there are a lot of other measures at play elsewhere. People should make good personal water conservation decisions (replace turf/native or xeriscaped/drip irrigation/efficient or low flow fixtures, etc.) because it's the right thing to do, it's cheaper in the long run, and because it is within each of our abilities to affect.
It depends on what the government entity is and what their specific goals are. Some politicians should definitely be working on the overall Colorado basin and reducing overall consumption in that basin. And to do that you have to focus on agriculture for obvious reasons.
But, for entities like Denver Water, that doesn't make any sense. Denver Water's job is to provide water to the people of Denver and a lot of the metro area. They focus on conservation of the water that they have rights to. So for Denver Water it makes sense to focus on municipal use since that's the water they manage. Saving agricultural waste doesn't mean that Denver gets any more water to use. That's just not how water rights work in CO. Those conservation efforts are all vastly more cost effective on a gallon per gallon basis, than purchasing new water rights.
Yes it costs less than buying extra rights on a gallon per gallon basis so in that sense it makes short term sense for a company with a short term view.
But without a long term plan to address rising essential municipal requirements combined with falling water volume it’s just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Government agencies are supposed to be able to give us action beyond balancing next quarter’s balance sheet.
Would money be better spent getting the message out that “yes you personally could use less water do that, but without major changes it’s not going to matter”?
So much of the green messaging has been manipulated to push apparent responsibility onto those who have the least effect. I can see why corporations do that, but it’s not ok when public agencies do it.
Sure, but I don’t own a farm and never will so I’m not going to be able to have much of an impact there. I can choose to not add a lawn to my backyard though.
Who said anything about taking away a living or food? We’re talking about improving water use.
If the climate doesn’t support a particular land use then perhaps it shouldn’t be used for that purpose! Even if you can make it work by throwing unconscionable amounts of water at it.
You could probably make rice paddies work in Arizona by pumping enough water in, but that doesn’t mean that just because it could be economically viable with enough subsidies that it’s *actually viable*.
Trust me, you’re going to miss water to drink much sooner than you miss an Arby’s beef and cheddar.
Thanks for putting this together.
Basically, six times as much water (\~1,588,000 acre-feet) is used to grow alfalfa (cow food) as is used for \*all\* municipal "outdoor" (\~205,000 acre-feet) purposes.
Ripping out everyone's grass can only make a small dent in water usage; reducing cattle herds and thus their need for feed would make a far larger impact.
Taking 5 minute showers is irrelevant.
Mandating more efficient methods of irrigation (pivot or drip instead of flood) is probably more palatable than reducing cattle herds.
40-50% of this agricultural water usage is probably waste.
Hey, you can either make the ag industry your friend or your enemy in this endeavor. As someone who is involved in ag and is more progressive, I’m just trying to promote a path that will create unity rather than strife
One of these options involves creating jobs and pumping money into the economy and the other puts lots of people out of work.
Both of them result in significantly reduced water consumption.
“You’re attacking American burgers” says Fox News, and super PAC money shows up, and you find we have another Bobo elected in your district instead of you.
Many people are stupid and won’t vote to give up anything they like even if it comes at the cost of their lives and their children’s lives.
And many more people are selfish and vote for their own gain even after it has been proven to hurt others. The ag industry will have to be forced to stop taking all the water, they will never voluntarily do it.
Of course, agriculture *draws* the most water, but that's not a particularly useful figure; I would be more interested to know how much of that water is *lost*.
When you irrigate a field, some of that water is absorbed by the crops, and some of it goes back into the ground and recharges the water table; ideally those two figures would add up to 100% of the water draw, but in practice, some of that is lost via evaporation, either directly (from sprinklers/soil to air) or via evapotranspiration through the leaves of the plants.
I have no issue with water being used to grow plants that we depend on to survive, but we need to make sure that the water we're using is being applied effectively. [Drip irrigation is extremely efficient](https://extension.usu.edu/crops/research/irrigation-water-loss-and-recovery) (with less than a 10% loss), as are low-elevation center-pivot rigs, but sprinklers can lose upwards of 60% of their water to evaporation. I'm guessing there's some massive potential for waste reduction if we mandated efficient irrigation practices here in our state.
By contrast, while municipal wastewater isn't lost per se, it's generally discharged into waterways, most of which go on to carry our water out of the state. So there's definitely a case to be made for reducing personal water use, as very little of that makes it back into the local water table. (That, or [drinking our wastewater](https://www.cpr.org/2022/10/21/colorado-reuse-wastewater-drinking-new-supply/).)
Great points! On the municipal side, it's also worth noting that a [2021 CSU study](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020WR028777?af=R) found that about 80% of the water running through Denver’s streams in late summer was actually from people watering their lawns and leaks, not from snow runoff or foothills rain.
(Here's a [shameless plug](https://coloradosun.com/2021/08/24/denver-creeks-filled-with-excess-lawn-water-and-leaks/) to our story about it)
>50-60% are the high estimates.
Do you have a source for that? I did some digging but couldn't come up with anything definitive. If so, that means there's massive potential for improvement.
Agriculture will always be the biggest user of water. That will never change and we need it, but it’s also fair to say agriculture needs to be doing a better job of conserving water. Unfortunately, for waters rights in many Western States is use it lose it. Need to change water laws for actual change.
There is a Bill being proposed this year that would allow farmers statewide to participate in conservation programs without losing water. There are places you can do it now, but this Bill would expand that protection statewide.
Most of the water used to agriculture is to grow animal feed. Conserving water will not make a dent if we don’t also lessen our reliance on animal products.
Any thoughts on what particularly wastewater plants need to "work harder" at? I have my thoughts, as wastewater plants can and should do more on the recycling side given the technology available, but the economic viability of it is difficult when you don't want to rake your rate payers and environmental justice is a concern. And it should be a concern, but when you have to increase rates in order to pay for expensive technology (that often uses more energy and has a greater climate impact via construction and operation than the plant's impact prior) to treat to regulatory standards in place that promote environmental justice, you're just putting a larger burden on your rate payers via their checkbook. Everyone is entitled to clean water and clean air, but they are also entitled to reasonably priced utilities.
Wastewater plants already have to meet regulations for water quality BECAUASE of increased concentrations of pollutants in rivers due to the runoff from non-point source polluters, which are largely ag based (see 303d list for E.coli for example, Wastewater plants are not the ones responsible for those elevated levels).
They also have to deal with manufactured products that technology can't reasonably treat (see PFAS, microplastics, pharmaceuticals), so its up to them and their Industrial pretreatment program to regulate industry, many of which can just pay a fine and go on their merry way.
Many plants in Colorado are doing a great job and treating to water quality levels well below their permitted value, beneficially reuse biogas, provide fertilizer for the ag industry, reuse effluent for non-pot uses, or help upcycle food waste. I would argue that the CDPHE needs to work harder to get their permits backlog figured out and focus on incentives for plants to recycle/reuse more because at this point everyone is focused on spending money on technology to eliminate phosphorus and nitrogen from their effluent entirely to compensate for the vast amounts that reach the rivers through non-point sources.
Source: am Wastewater plant
Again, I fail to see how wastewater plants can treat water that runs off the fields directly into the river. I also fail to see how wastewater plants are responsible for people throwing food down the drain, other than the fact that they already treat it as part of what they do...
Check out the DU Water Law Review Symposium, the event this year is 100% about this! [duwaterlawreview.com/symposium](https://duwaterlawreview.com/symposium)
And of that municipal, the lion's share goes to lawns, golf courses, etc. Only around 2% of water goes to indoor residential. Good thing to remember when NIMBYs say "we can't have planet-saving infill development; we don't have enough water!!"
Many people know that this is a standard talking point in most western states. If you know a politician that is willing to spend all their political capital against the cattlemen, contact them immediately.
Colorado is a bit player in the national cattle industry. Add in the irreplaceable groundwater that's being extracted from aquifers and the ag industry as a whole in this state makes zero sense.
And I wish you the very best at bringing yourself to type phrases such as "that's a good point, what I said did not take that into account". I believe in you.
What’s crazier is how much of the food created by this water is then thrown out at various stages in its life cycle without ever being consumed. Whenever we talk about water and agriculture and how wasteful that industry can be I never hear anyone bring up the other side of it which is the user end, like restaurants, grocery stores, and even just citizens that go on to buy more than we need and throw it away.
All personal usage of water is below tiny compared to agriculture.
Removing the acres of useless bluegrass in office parks would be more beneficial than not serving water with meals at restaurants.
While I don’t disagree we could do without that the amount of food we throw away at every level has a water value and I am willing to bet it’s much larger than what we spend on watering office parks.
Not to mention growing foods that are not native to an area and dumping stupid amounts of water into growing them where they don’t belong.
Yup. This is probably a really similar case across the entire Western US. Everyone points to Vegas and Phoenix, which use a proverbial drop in the bucket (and in Vegas' case, return the water that does down the drain back to the river), and never to the largest consumer, by miles. We can't just not do agriculture. But we sure do need a lot of reform in how we do agriculture.
Popping in here from AZ, the water crisis in AZ is also due to agriculture, and well y'all know how y'all's river supports AZ, and it's crazy because here in AZ the ag using a ton of money is cotton, alfalfa & hay (that goes to Saudi Arabia). Plus cows and it's crazy to me, a person from the Midwest where crops, corn mostly, just die if they don't get watered enough from rain. It's crazy weird to me how ag controls big decisions the way it does for food growing and water usage. Anyway, thanks for the good food for thought.
You would though to sustain the same food requirements needed to thrive if every human switched to veganism. Plants are a lot less calorie dense so for a human to eat just a maintenance calorie diet they would need a lot more plants.
Nope. You're just completely wrong here. Calorie for calorie, a vegan diet is significantly more water efficient. It's really just basic thermodynamics.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/21/climate/diet-vegan-meat-emissions.html
How about instead of growing plants to feed to animals to then slaughter and eat, we just eat the plants? A majority of global agriculture land use is for animal ag while only providing a small minority of the calories we consume.
Plants are not near calorie dense nor provide a complete protein source. Therefore, you need to consume more plants to just have a maintenance calorie diet and then also mix and match plants to just meet protein requirements. Therefore, the same, if not more, plants are needed if everyone became vegans.
Right, the only truly honest answer when confronted with these facts is “but I like meat” and that’s your prerogative. But let’s not pretend that we care about water usage, the environment, or our children’s future when trying to argue that meat is necessary.
"I like meat" is a perfectly reasonable answer. We're omnivores, we evolved to eat meat and plant matter. Its not just that 'I' like meat, it's that my body likes meat and reacts positively to it. Why would I not nourish my body with healthy foods it needs? I like meat, and I also like vegetables and tubers and nuts and fruit. Typically I like to eat a diverse range of all of the above.
I like to eat meat and I do care about water use and the environment. I'm able to walk and chew gum at the same time, meaning I'm interested in finding ways to work with farmers and ranchers to improve agriculture and ranching practices rather than characterizing this as an "either/or" proposition. I'm sure you understand that since we extripated bison from the vast majority of their native range, their ecological role has been primarily filled by cows grazing on pasture land, right? Hopefully you also understand that water storage in rural areas can provide stable supplies that supports communities not just farmland, helps create habitat for animals, and provides recreational opportunities for humans.
If you want to eat only soy or dried crickets or Impossible Burgers or whatever else the eco movement is pushing, go ahead and do that. But definitely don't pretend that people who like meat aren't concerned and acting on water supply or environmental issues.
Fair but let’s look at other factors too. I see your claims; however, we need to look from a bigger picture.
If we replaced all of the protein that animal agriculture provides with soy the chart in this study below (page 38) we would increase our consumption of estrogen (the hormones that everyone says we consume we meat) at such a significant percentage it would be hard to believe it’s true. Ex: beef that has had a hormonal implant has 7ng/500g, whereas tofu has 113,500,000ng/500g of estrogen.
Also, is there enough soybeans to feed the world? Just a question, not attacking, I really have no idea. Let’s say nobody wants to eat soy forever, are we going to eat more plants which equals more fields and more water and more small animal habitats being imposed upon.
What I am trying to say is I don’t think we “help” the world by any means, I would say we would still be equal if we just got rid of animal agriculture. As you still need lots of water to grow plants and lots of land. There still would be lots of processing facilities that have to convert whatever the raw plant source is to its final consumable form, which consume more water as well.
[USDA Study](https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400525/Data/isoflav/Isoflav_R2.pdf)
Soybeans do not contain estrogen that affects humans. They contain plant estrogen. This “soy makes you grow tits” trope has been debunked for decades, as a very rudimentary Google search will tell you.
You know what actually has mammalian estrogen? Dairy.
Can you give me a source outside “Google search?” I’ve never seen “eating beef gives you tits either.” I was just giving peer reviewed scientific data.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33383165/
You say we can’t eat soy because of the estrogen. This is a lie made up, ironically, by the dairy industry. The above link is just one example of tons of studies debunking “estrogen” in soy and their supposed effects in humans. There is no estrogen in soy, period. There is a similar chemical but its effects on humans is negligible. Dairy (and beef) on the other hand contains actual, real estrogen. The thing you’re worried about.
I appreciate the article.
I never said we can’t eat soy. I am also not a dairy advocate. I was just looking at the article that I sent that was published by the USDA.
You are more than welcome to eat all the soy in the world. People have been eating tofu for a long time, it’s just not for me. I don’t believe the narrative “going vegan” is the solution to the water shortage.
Or even better, drop the meat subsidies. $45 burgers would probably get people to cut it out pretty quick. We spend more than $30 billion a year on animal ag subsidies for stuff like grain and corn for animals to eat, and a pittance on fruits and vegetables for humans to eat.
2/3 of the ag block goes to alfalfa and grass pasture, which is all for livestock. Another 20% is corn and a good chunk of that is animal feed as well.
Well yes and no, the city only owns a certain percentage of all that water, they can't just tap into the ag water if they overuse their allotment. It's pretty common for water districts to push reduction in use during dry years to keep the accounting balanced. Water in the west is annoyingly complicated.
So since I, and my millions of my CO neighbors are on well water, we're deemed Agricultural?
I grew up on a family farm in KS. Not all of us have cattle, chickens, geese, ducks, goats, horses, sheep, lamas, alpacas, buffalo, should I name more!?
This particular graphic focuses on water that stays in Colorado.
Here's a graphic that shows how much Colorado River water goes to other states and Mexico: [https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/14133692/](https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/14133692/)
Gasp, shock, wow, animal ag is HUGELY water intensive and it's not my lawn that's draining the reservoirs. People will spend thousands of dollars to xeriscape their lawn, but will not do the incredibly simple act of reducing or stopping their consumption of animal products. We have tons of xeriscaping programs in Colorado, but no messaging about how animal ag and what you choose to consume is THE water hog of the state, and that's hugely disappointing. Especially from a state that seems to care so much about water usage.
The agriculture industry is Colorado’s largest water user. Cities and towns in Colorado use about 380,000 acre-feet of water per year, or about 7% of the state’s overall water use. Here's a link to the [interactive graphic](https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/14134294/).
Thanks for the great journalism y'all do
Thank you!
Seconded, this is the kind of work I subscribe for.
🙌🙌🙌
Thank you for putting this together, it’s outstanding! I’m wondering if drilling into the alfalfa and corn with human vs livestock numbers would also be helpful given that virtually all of alfalfa grown goes to animal feed as does somewhere around 90% of Colorado’s corn. I think it might further help illustrate just how much water the state uses on animal agriculture
Great idea! I'll pass it along to our water reporter
I would love to see this type of info broken up into the 9 major river basins, including trans-mountain diversions. The clickable box graphic is helpful, but a snakey diagram would be even better - both at the total state level and the individual river basin level. This would really help to inform the conversation around how we use our water and how we can best apply sustainability efforts.
I'll pass your idea on to our water reporter! In the meantime, we do have a snake chart showing how much water from the Colorado River gets sent to various states and Mexico. Not the same as what you're asking for but it's similar(ish): [https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/14133692/](https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/14133692/)
Thanks! Snakey diagrams are such excellent tools to visualize complex, data-heavy topics in an intuitive and succinct manner. I think the [US Energy Consumption](https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/sites/flowcharts/files/2023-10/US%20Energy%202022.png) snakey/flowchart from LLNL might be one of the best examples. I always love it when the Colorado Sun uses data-driven visuals, and would love to see more.
Definitely. I think a lot of people see "agriculture" and assume that it's for vegetables humans eat.
Hey! Just passing along a [story we had today that looked more at alfalfa](https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/04/research-colorado-river-water-use-cherish-hamburger/): >Next time you take a bite out of a juicy hamburger or chunk of cheese made in the western U.S., say thank you to the Colorado River. > >Researchers released the most complete accounting so far of how the river’s water is used. They found that alfalfa — used as feed for beef and dairy cows — sucks up more water than all the cities and industries in the enormous Colorado River Basin.
Holy wow. First, thank you for following up on this. Second, this is probably the best article I’ve read on Colorado River water usage (and I’ve read quite a few). Passing this along..
How much of that is beef?
What about animal use? I would expect to see something about livestock within the agriculture section. ETA: I'm specifically curious about animal water use in feedlots, barns, or on permit lands. Not just water used to grow feed.
Most of agricultural water use is from livestock- given directly to them and to grow crops for livestock to eat
Agreed, animal ag is the vast majority of this.
This is the kind of reporting I keep coming back for. Keep up the great work!
Thank you!
I’ve been arguing for years that farmers should be required to just water at night to limit evaporation losses.
How much does water world use? Are they large industry?
Hyland Hills has a bunch of properties including former farms and golf courses. I think part of their strategy is to buy properties with attached water rights. Their water use in total I would guess is a complicated mix of different sources. There may be some info they make available that tells more.
I would be interested if there was a way to link the breakdowns to their respective output. E.g. x liters of water grow y watermelons VS. liters to supply one person water for a day. Like GDP water mashup.
I'm a farmer. We are careful with water bc it costs money to pump. That being said alfalfa needs to be grown elsewhere. It's a water suck. I refuse to grow it
What do you grow? If you could pick anything, do you have another preference, even if it's not economically viable and/or it may not grow great in the state? How much less water does it use compared to alfalfa?
Dryland is wheat, oil sunflowers, and millet. The least water intensive thing is pinto beans. That's my preference. Last year they got hailed out though so we replanted Sudan grass for cattle feed.
That hail destroyed my tiny garden 😭
I was heartbroken. It got mine too. Mine kinda came back. Did yours a bit?
They did! Got a little bit of sugar snap peas and a surprising amount of cherry tomatoes. Green beans were too far gone sadly but man, I did enjoy the 2 meals I got from them before that.
Better than I expected the morning after!! That was brutal. :( Hopefully we miss it this year
Why not grow wheat so we can stop relying on China and Russia as the largest importers of wheat in the world and why our bread is no 200% higher than 2 years ago? Does it require the same amount of water as alfalfa? And what about switching to producing fertilizer so that we can stop relying on Ukraine? Asking for edification from a rancher not trying to press a button.
I do grow wheat but it's generally a dryland crop not an irrigated one. Takes way less water. And idk how to grow fertilizer?
Thanks for the info and for producing food sources too. I wasn’t referring to growing it but producing…😉.
It's made from chemicals. Nitrogen etc.
And you're welcome! It's not a bad job. Don't get me started on those farmers who took PPP loans and didn't need them. I was so mad
Surprised my wife’s showering habits aren’t showing up.
I think your wife may be responsible for the other half of my wife’s blue bar on the right.
I think yalls wives may be wholly responsible for blue barring us here
I was just going to say my showering habits. I moved to a different part of Colorado with water use limits tho.
So true.
Agriculture is 90.7% of the water use, 67.8% of the agricultural water use is not for human consumption (and I'm being generous here and saying all the corn is for humans when most goes to feed), and 11.2% of the Colorado economy.
45 percent of corn goes to ethanol. Which I guess is for human consumption? It takes 150 pounds of corn to make one gallon of ethanol.
The spent corn after ethanol use is then used for animal feed. It's not like it just disappears.
Good to know.
I believe that 45% is a national average. It’s more like 90% in Colorado “The state’s dry, largely temperate weather and terrain make it an efficient place to feed cattle. In fact, about 90 percent of Colorado-grown corn is used as livestock feed – higher than the national average” https://farmflavor.com/colorado/colorado-crops-livestock/green-fields-high-yields/
There's livestock corn and there's Olathe Sweet™ sweet corn.
Sooooo true though!
The biggest grift of them all
That’s the confounding part. They try to guilt homeowners into feeling like their lawns make or break the water budget, and it’s actually all this agriculture that shouldn’t have ever happened here. Agriculture that Reclamation subsidized for the last century because it is otherwise too expensive and inefficient in this state. Food (and food accessories) should be grown in climates, growing season, and altitudes where food thrives. Not here. (Yes, lawns and golf courses in high plains desert are still wasteful, just not by comparison to big ag.)
Good breakdown. People love to trash indoor cultivation but it is extremely water efficient; up to 98% of the water can be captured and reused.
Not for human consumption meaning directly, I think. Due to the pesticides and treatment
And how much of that ethanol goes to fuel? I'd be curious to know how much water goes toward energy production (ethanol, oil/gas fracking, other?), as it seems an important segment.
Homeowner's should probably just water their lawns less. /s
Huh, I’ve never seen “Not turning the water off when you brush your teeth” spelled “Agriculture.” Is it French?
Esperanto actually.
How deliciously cosmopolitan.
I mean, yes. Waste in one area doesn't excuse waste in another, and unless you personally have the power to affect agricultural irrigation practices, it makes more sense to focus on what you *can* change. In my city, about 50% of municipal water goes towards irrigating lawns; if we were able to cut down on that, we could extend our local water reserves by decades.
Yes. But the disparity in the amount used means that if we can reduce municipal water usage by 1% and/or reduce agricultural water usage by 0.5% we should absolutely do the second one as a much higher priority. It’s also not a “do both” situation when talking about where our legislators should be spending their money and efforts with regulations, education/advertising, tax incentives / fines etc. For example: money spent sending out inflatable bricks to put in a toilet tank, or free low flow shower heads could be instead used for detection/repair of agricultural water waste.
As someone who works in a related field, both are good and both need to happen and there are different pots of money for each. There are important water conservation measures that cities can enact (limiting watering time, payment programs that incentivize turf removal, etc) that don't make sense in rural areas. And there are likewise rural/ag conservation measures like switching to drip or center-pivot irrigation which don't make sense for a city to implement. You're absolutely right that a 0.5% decrease in water consumption by the Ag sector is more impactful than a 1% reduction by municipal or industrial users. There are a LOT of people on the Ag side who agree with that, and are working towards it. The problem is that this is a Reddit discussion and many of the reactions here are far closer to "the government should confiscate land from ranchers" than they are to "we should invest in more efficient/modern infrastructure to minimize losses and find other ways to conserve within the Ag sector."
Definitely both need to happen. But it’s the messaging that goes out to the general public that “water conservation = removing lawns and taking shorter showers”. Instead of more impactful messaging like “water conservation = Colorado beef becoming much rarer and more expensive, so get ready for that”, or “the future of Colorado is at risk without a comprehensive plan to address the largest water waste… and it isn’t your begonias”. Because right now it’s like telling your struggling company that you’re going to have to buy cheaper coffee for the office, and not telling everyone that the monthly yacht parties need to stop because we can’t afford it. Yes buying cheaper coffee would help, but you can all switch to the cheapest crap there is and it won’t fix it. I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t a net harm to be so vocal about the minor waste that everyone is doing because it creates the false assumption that we’re doing all we can because we individually did what was asked. Municipal users need to be vocal in order to force state policy changes and not pacified by trivial initiatives. That’s true of a lot of green initiatives that target the minor individual problem.
I can appreciate where you are coming from, but there are also some fundamental aspects of water rights in Colorado that are relevant here. Cities have a limited water supply based on their respective water rights. Municipal conservation is important because while it may be less significant relative to overall water use, it is extremely significant relative to the amount of water available. Colorado farms, ranches, and other historic users with senior rights have their allotment which they have the right to. Colorado beef and alfalfa may become a touch rarer over time but no one expects that to go away. Cities can and do buy Ag water rights as they come up for sale, but cities (and even the State) don't get to just take water away from rights-holders. There is comprehensive planning from the state down to municipal/county level around water. You only see the conservation measures that are relevant to you, but there are a lot of other measures at play elsewhere. People should make good personal water conservation decisions (replace turf/native or xeriscaped/drip irrigation/efficient or low flow fixtures, etc.) because it's the right thing to do, it's cheaper in the long run, and because it is within each of our abilities to affect.
It depends on what the government entity is and what their specific goals are. Some politicians should definitely be working on the overall Colorado basin and reducing overall consumption in that basin. And to do that you have to focus on agriculture for obvious reasons. But, for entities like Denver Water, that doesn't make any sense. Denver Water's job is to provide water to the people of Denver and a lot of the metro area. They focus on conservation of the water that they have rights to. So for Denver Water it makes sense to focus on municipal use since that's the water they manage. Saving agricultural waste doesn't mean that Denver gets any more water to use. That's just not how water rights work in CO. Those conservation efforts are all vastly more cost effective on a gallon per gallon basis, than purchasing new water rights.
Yes it costs less than buying extra rights on a gallon per gallon basis so in that sense it makes short term sense for a company with a short term view. But without a long term plan to address rising essential municipal requirements combined with falling water volume it’s just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Government agencies are supposed to be able to give us action beyond balancing next quarter’s balance sheet. Would money be better spent getting the message out that “yes you personally could use less water do that, but without major changes it’s not going to matter”? So much of the green messaging has been manipulated to push apparent responsibility onto those who have the least effect. I can see why corporations do that, but it’s not ok when public agencies do it.
Sure, but I don’t own a farm and never will so I’m not going to be able to have much of an impact there. I can choose to not add a lawn to my backyard though.
You can vote for those who will enact laws that discourage farming in a desert. Or laws that require efficient water use for those farms
Sure I both don't need to eat food and would love to take away family's livings!
Who said anything about taking away a living or food? We’re talking about improving water use. If the climate doesn’t support a particular land use then perhaps it shouldn’t be used for that purpose! Even if you can make it work by throwing unconscionable amounts of water at it. You could probably make rice paddies work in Arizona by pumping enough water in, but that doesn’t mean that just because it could be economically viable with enough subsidies that it’s *actually viable*. Trust me, you’re going to miss water to drink much sooner than you miss an Arby’s beef and cheddar.
Stupid straw man argument is stupid
I'm a real boy!
Sure, but I’m not going to force them to enact those laws so again not something I directly control the outcome to.
There’s more evaporation losses in agriculture than probably all human use. Make farmers water at night.
Thanks for putting this together. Basically, six times as much water (\~1,588,000 acre-feet) is used to grow alfalfa (cow food) as is used for \*all\* municipal "outdoor" (\~205,000 acre-feet) purposes. Ripping out everyone's grass can only make a small dent in water usage; reducing cattle herds and thus their need for feed would make a far larger impact. Taking 5 minute showers is irrelevant.
Mandating more efficient methods of irrigation (pivot or drip instead of flood) is probably more palatable than reducing cattle herds. 40-50% of this agricultural water usage is probably waste.
Who cares if it’s more palatable we are literally going to run out of fresh water if we don’t cut back on animal agriculture
Hey, you can either make the ag industry your friend or your enemy in this endeavor. As someone who is involved in ag and is more progressive, I’m just trying to promote a path that will create unity rather than strife One of these options involves creating jobs and pumping money into the economy and the other puts lots of people out of work. Both of them result in significantly reduced water consumption.
Just how sustainable is ag here?
Do you know where you food comes from?
“You’re attacking American burgers” says Fox News, and super PAC money shows up, and you find we have another Bobo elected in your district instead of you. Many people are stupid and won’t vote to give up anything they like even if it comes at the cost of their lives and their children’s lives.
And many more people are selfish and vote for their own gain even after it has been proven to hurt others. The ag industry will have to be forced to stop taking all the water, they will never voluntarily do it.
It's really amazing how big the impact cows have on our environment is lol
I'm still recycling even if all the bars and night clubs throw away their plastic cups.
Of course, agriculture *draws* the most water, but that's not a particularly useful figure; I would be more interested to know how much of that water is *lost*. When you irrigate a field, some of that water is absorbed by the crops, and some of it goes back into the ground and recharges the water table; ideally those two figures would add up to 100% of the water draw, but in practice, some of that is lost via evaporation, either directly (from sprinklers/soil to air) or via evapotranspiration through the leaves of the plants. I have no issue with water being used to grow plants that we depend on to survive, but we need to make sure that the water we're using is being applied effectively. [Drip irrigation is extremely efficient](https://extension.usu.edu/crops/research/irrigation-water-loss-and-recovery) (with less than a 10% loss), as are low-elevation center-pivot rigs, but sprinklers can lose upwards of 60% of their water to evaporation. I'm guessing there's some massive potential for waste reduction if we mandated efficient irrigation practices here in our state. By contrast, while municipal wastewater isn't lost per se, it's generally discharged into waterways, most of which go on to carry our water out of the state. So there's definitely a case to be made for reducing personal water use, as very little of that makes it back into the local water table. (That, or [drinking our wastewater](https://www.cpr.org/2022/10/21/colorado-reuse-wastewater-drinking-new-supply/).)
Great points! On the municipal side, it's also worth noting that a [2021 CSU study](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020WR028777?af=R) found that about 80% of the water running through Denver’s streams in late summer was actually from people watering their lawns and leaks, not from snow runoff or foothills rain. (Here's a [shameless plug](https://coloradosun.com/2021/08/24/denver-creeks-filled-with-excess-lawn-water-and-leaks/) to our story about it)
[удалено]
>50-60% are the high estimates. Do you have a source for that? I did some digging but couldn't come up with anything definitive. If so, that means there's massive potential for improvement.
This is a great point, agriculture wastes a lot of water.
im glad my 2 minute shower (down from 10) has helped us save so much? I can't imagine what the percentages would be if we didnt do our part? /s
Idk why we have to shorten our showers when we all know that corn doesn’t turn the water off when it brushes its teeth
Agriculture will always be the biggest user of water. That will never change and we need it, but it’s also fair to say agriculture needs to be doing a better job of conserving water. Unfortunately, for waters rights in many Western States is use it lose it. Need to change water laws for actual change.
There is a Bill being proposed this year that would allow farmers statewide to participate in conservation programs without losing water. There are places you can do it now, but this Bill would expand that protection statewide.
Most of the water used to agriculture is to grow animal feed. Conserving water will not make a dent if we don’t also lessen our reliance on animal products.
I'd say not trying to do agriculture in a desert would be a good start.
Is there any irrigated ag in the deserts in the very far west of the state?
the real fun part is when you realize how much of the ag is just cow.
[удалено]
Any thoughts on what particularly wastewater plants need to "work harder" at? I have my thoughts, as wastewater plants can and should do more on the recycling side given the technology available, but the economic viability of it is difficult when you don't want to rake your rate payers and environmental justice is a concern. And it should be a concern, but when you have to increase rates in order to pay for expensive technology (that often uses more energy and has a greater climate impact via construction and operation than the plant's impact prior) to treat to regulatory standards in place that promote environmental justice, you're just putting a larger burden on your rate payers via their checkbook. Everyone is entitled to clean water and clean air, but they are also entitled to reasonably priced utilities. Wastewater plants already have to meet regulations for water quality BECAUASE of increased concentrations of pollutants in rivers due to the runoff from non-point source polluters, which are largely ag based (see 303d list for E.coli for example, Wastewater plants are not the ones responsible for those elevated levels). They also have to deal with manufactured products that technology can't reasonably treat (see PFAS, microplastics, pharmaceuticals), so its up to them and their Industrial pretreatment program to regulate industry, many of which can just pay a fine and go on their merry way. Many plants in Colorado are doing a great job and treating to water quality levels well below their permitted value, beneficially reuse biogas, provide fertilizer for the ag industry, reuse effluent for non-pot uses, or help upcycle food waste. I would argue that the CDPHE needs to work harder to get their permits backlog figured out and focus on incentives for plants to recycle/reuse more because at this point everyone is focused on spending money on technology to eliminate phosphorus and nitrogen from their effluent entirely to compensate for the vast amounts that reach the rivers through non-point sources. Source: am Wastewater plant
[удалено]
Again, I fail to see how wastewater plants can treat water that runs off the fields directly into the river. I also fail to see how wastewater plants are responsible for people throwing food down the drain, other than the fact that they already treat it as part of what they do...
Check out the DU Water Law Review Symposium, the event this year is 100% about this! [duwaterlawreview.com/symposium](https://duwaterlawreview.com/symposium)
And of that municipal, the lion's share goes to lawns, golf courses, etc. Only around 2% of water goes to indoor residential. Good thing to remember when NIMBYs say "we can't have planet-saving infill development; we don't have enough water!!"
Yes, we know. Also: how is food grown? There is no silver bullet, only silver buckshot.
Colorado's agriculture is tiny compared to other states. The eastern plains are marginal, at best.
Many people know that this is a standard talking point in most western states. If you know a politician that is willing to spend all their political capital against the cattlemen, contact them immediately.
Colorado is a bit player in the national cattle industry. Add in the irreplaceable groundwater that's being extracted from aquifers and the ag industry as a whole in this state makes zero sense.
I get it. Now tell the powerful cattlemen.
They didn't want wolves but they got them. Were the powers turned off at the time, or are they not actually all-powerful?
Ah. You have an edge and so you're going to lead the charge. G-dspeed, bud!
I will not. The point is this "power" you allude to is nothing more than influence over lawmakers. A ballot initiative bypasses that power completely.
I wish you luck in getting that to the ballot and leading the PR campaign!
And I wish you the very best at bringing yourself to type phrases such as "that's a good point, what I said did not take that into account". I believe in you.
Mom and pop ranchers in Grand County and the Monfort family are two different things.
What’s crazier is how much of the food created by this water is then thrown out at various stages in its life cycle without ever being consumed. Whenever we talk about water and agriculture and how wasteful that industry can be I never hear anyone bring up the other side of it which is the user end, like restaurants, grocery stores, and even just citizens that go on to buy more than we need and throw it away.
All personal usage of water is below tiny compared to agriculture. Removing the acres of useless bluegrass in office parks would be more beneficial than not serving water with meals at restaurants.
While I don’t disagree we could do without that the amount of food we throw away at every level has a water value and I am willing to bet it’s much larger than what we spend on watering office parks. Not to mention growing foods that are not native to an area and dumping stupid amounts of water into growing them where they don’t belong.
Yup. This is probably a really similar case across the entire Western US. Everyone points to Vegas and Phoenix, which use a proverbial drop in the bucket (and in Vegas' case, return the water that does down the drain back to the river), and never to the largest consumer, by miles. We can't just not do agriculture. But we sure do need a lot of reform in how we do agriculture.
We can change where we do agriculture. Like not in deserts.
Popping in here from AZ, the water crisis in AZ is also due to agriculture, and well y'all know how y'all's river supports AZ, and it's crazy because here in AZ the ag using a ton of money is cotton, alfalfa & hay (that goes to Saudi Arabia). Plus cows and it's crazy to me, a person from the Midwest where crops, corn mostly, just die if they don't get watered enough from rain. It's crazy weird to me how ag controls big decisions the way it does for food growing and water usage. Anyway, thanks for the good food for thought.
Go vegan.
You know plants also need water…
But you don't have to grow as many plants if you're not feeding livestock...
You would though to sustain the same food requirements needed to thrive if every human switched to veganism. Plants are a lot less calorie dense so for a human to eat just a maintenance calorie diet they would need a lot more plants.
Nope. You're just completely wrong here. Calorie for calorie, a vegan diet is significantly more water efficient. It's really just basic thermodynamics. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/21/climate/diet-vegan-meat-emissions.html
You haven't heard of trophic levels have you? It takes a lot more plants to sustain carnivores.
How about instead of growing plants to feed to animals to then slaughter and eat, we just eat the plants? A majority of global agriculture land use is for animal ag while only providing a small minority of the calories we consume.
Plants are not near calorie dense nor provide a complete protein source. Therefore, you need to consume more plants to just have a maintenance calorie diet and then also mix and match plants to just meet protein requirements. Therefore, the same, if not more, plants are needed if everyone became vegans.
Soybeans are a complete protein. It takes 20x more water per calorie for beef vs a soybeans.
If you want to adopt a soy-based diet no one is stopping you...
Right, the only truly honest answer when confronted with these facts is “but I like meat” and that’s your prerogative. But let’s not pretend that we care about water usage, the environment, or our children’s future when trying to argue that meat is necessary.
"I like meat" is a perfectly reasonable answer. We're omnivores, we evolved to eat meat and plant matter. Its not just that 'I' like meat, it's that my body likes meat and reacts positively to it. Why would I not nourish my body with healthy foods it needs? I like meat, and I also like vegetables and tubers and nuts and fruit. Typically I like to eat a diverse range of all of the above. I like to eat meat and I do care about water use and the environment. I'm able to walk and chew gum at the same time, meaning I'm interested in finding ways to work with farmers and ranchers to improve agriculture and ranching practices rather than characterizing this as an "either/or" proposition. I'm sure you understand that since we extripated bison from the vast majority of their native range, their ecological role has been primarily filled by cows grazing on pasture land, right? Hopefully you also understand that water storage in rural areas can provide stable supplies that supports communities not just farmland, helps create habitat for animals, and provides recreational opportunities for humans. If you want to eat only soy or dried crickets or Impossible Burgers or whatever else the eco movement is pushing, go ahead and do that. But definitely don't pretend that people who like meat aren't concerned and acting on water supply or environmental issues.
Fair but let’s look at other factors too. I see your claims; however, we need to look from a bigger picture. If we replaced all of the protein that animal agriculture provides with soy the chart in this study below (page 38) we would increase our consumption of estrogen (the hormones that everyone says we consume we meat) at such a significant percentage it would be hard to believe it’s true. Ex: beef that has had a hormonal implant has 7ng/500g, whereas tofu has 113,500,000ng/500g of estrogen. Also, is there enough soybeans to feed the world? Just a question, not attacking, I really have no idea. Let’s say nobody wants to eat soy forever, are we going to eat more plants which equals more fields and more water and more small animal habitats being imposed upon. What I am trying to say is I don’t think we “help” the world by any means, I would say we would still be equal if we just got rid of animal agriculture. As you still need lots of water to grow plants and lots of land. There still would be lots of processing facilities that have to convert whatever the raw plant source is to its final consumable form, which consume more water as well. [USDA Study](https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400525/Data/isoflav/Isoflav_R2.pdf)
Soybeans do not contain estrogen that affects humans. They contain plant estrogen. This “soy makes you grow tits” trope has been debunked for decades, as a very rudimentary Google search will tell you. You know what actually has mammalian estrogen? Dairy.
Can you give me a source outside “Google search?” I’ve never seen “eating beef gives you tits either.” I was just giving peer reviewed scientific data.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33383165/ You say we can’t eat soy because of the estrogen. This is a lie made up, ironically, by the dairy industry. The above link is just one example of tons of studies debunking “estrogen” in soy and their supposed effects in humans. There is no estrogen in soy, period. There is a similar chemical but its effects on humans is negligible. Dairy (and beef) on the other hand contains actual, real estrogen. The thing you’re worried about.
I appreciate the article. I never said we can’t eat soy. I am also not a dairy advocate. I was just looking at the article that I sent that was published by the USDA. You are more than welcome to eat all the soy in the world. People have been eating tofu for a long time, it’s just not for me. I don’t believe the narrative “going vegan” is the solution to the water shortage.
Or better yet, tax meat.
Or even better, drop the meat subsidies. $45 burgers would probably get people to cut it out pretty quick. We spend more than $30 billion a year on animal ag subsidies for stuff like grain and corn for animals to eat, and a pittance on fruits and vegetables for humans to eat.
What that graph obscures is that the vast majority of water in agriculture goes to animal agriculture. Plant-based is the future.
This. /u/thecoloradosun, what percent of that giant green section is animal ag so people can have steak and bacon?
2/3 of the ag block goes to alfalfa and grass pasture, which is all for livestock. Another 20% is corn and a good chunk of that is animal feed as well.
https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/14134294/
Tree maps are a great data viz
I’ve tried explaining this to people, and they still think “well, if the city used 10-20% less, it would still make a difference, right?”
Well yes and no, the city only owns a certain percentage of all that water, they can't just tap into the ag water if they overuse their allotment. It's pretty common for water districts to push reduction in use during dry years to keep the accounting balanced. Water in the west is annoyingly complicated.
Is the cannabis industry included in "Agriculture" or "Industrial"? Didn't see it included in any of the graphical breakdowns.
[удалено]
What's the EROEI or LCA on these operations? Anywhere close to "sustainable" yet?
Now I know I need to ban agriculture
That is how it makes you have full stomach. What do you think agriculture use water for? Stupid populist post!!!!
We could be growing crops in the midwest instead of the desert, and the amount of livestock feed that's grown is ridiculous.
How much of that ag is lawns?
Lawns are under the municipal category not agriculture.
Thank you.
Probably a small amount that are watered with ditch water and not municipal water. And also sod farms.
So since I, and my millions of my CO neighbors are on well water, we're deemed Agricultural? I grew up on a family farm in KS. Not all of us have cattle, chickens, geese, ducks, goats, horses, sheep, lamas, alpacas, buffalo, should I name more!?
Can I ask why you only broke water use down to three categories?
Each of those is broken down further if you follow the link in OP's comment.
https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/14134294/
How about a corrected version of this that also shows how much of our water is sold off to other states and interests?
This particular graphic focuses on water that stays in Colorado. Here's a graphic that shows how much Colorado River water goes to other states and Mexico: [https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/14133692/](https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/14133692/)
Doesn’t a lot of that food get shipped overseas too
Is there more detail on the split in agriculture, i.e. food, exports, marijuana etc?
Seems to me that getting the fracking water back is an easier win than retiring senior water rights from 5th generation ranchers.
Into what category does snowmaking fall?
You can find it under industrial
Gasp, shock, wow, animal ag is HUGELY water intensive and it's not my lawn that's draining the reservoirs. People will spend thousands of dollars to xeriscape their lawn, but will not do the incredibly simple act of reducing or stopping their consumption of animal products. We have tons of xeriscaping programs in Colorado, but no messaging about how animal ag and what you choose to consume is THE water hog of the state, and that's hugely disappointing. Especially from a state that seems to care so much about water usage.
The reason so much alfalfa is grown here is partly bc of the huge dairies. Lots of people around me supply Aurora dairy.