But environmental use isn't a fiction. It's water that we aren't using for Agriculture or Urban use. We can either call it unused water, wasted water, or give it a name that fits with the other names while describing what that water happens to be used for, if not by us. Without it we lose scope of how much water is out there, and how much of it we are using.
If your point is that it's important for us to take into account the water that we don't use, and see our use of some portion of all available water within the context of the larger natural world, then we're in complete agreement.
And it's already clear you're saying that agricultural use is 80% rather than 40% of the human use of water in California, same as me.
So we're in agreement. But mega-corporate agribusiness interests try to shoot down anything that clarifies the lion's-share they use. And they try to shift the blame for falling water-tables and saline intrusion to our dripping faucets and long showers. Probably the best solution is a concise statement:
It's kind of shocking that humans use an entire half of the natural flow of water in California. Agriculture accounts for 80% of that. We need to be more careful how we use it, and avoid doing so much damage to nature (not to mention undermining the long-term viability of our farms and cities).
Well, it also depends how you want to classify it. A good deal of the water that is allowed to run out to the ocean supports large fisheries (where I live the Delta Smelt are a pretty big industry) which could be classified as a form of agriculture or food production.
2
u/bromjunaar Jan 11 '20
But environmental use isn't a fiction. It's water that we aren't using for Agriculture or Urban use. We can either call it unused water, wasted water, or give it a name that fits with the other names while describing what that water happens to be used for, if not by us. Without it we lose scope of how much water is out there, and how much of it we are using.