
As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms - clumsysmurf
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/groundwater-depletion-global-food-supply/
======
tkyjonathan
"thirsty grains like rice and wheat".. Yet again no mention of animal
agriculture. How much water a day does a cow need Vs wheat?

~~~
miles
Producing a pound of beef requires 2,000 gallons, vs 138 gallons for a pound
of wheat: [http://www.gracelinks.org/blog/1143/beef-the-king-of-the-
big...](http://www.gracelinks.org/blog/1143/beef-the-king-of-the-big-water-
footprints)

~~~
d0mine
I see numbers from 441 to ~12,000 gallons that does not inspire confidence in
the estimation methods.

No doubt beef requires much more water than wheat but let's not oversimplify.

~~~
holyOrIonsBelt
The cow also walks to the water, the wheat, not so much. Plus, milk.

Does wheat produce a sugar laden liquid that can be replenished by the cow
every few days that is macrobiotic as all get out?

And yes, I know about beer.

------
cardamomo
I grew up next to Lake Michigan, a huge source of fresh water. Yet for decades
only municipalities within the Great Lakes watershed have been allowed to draw
water from them. That pact has only recently started to be challenged by
thirsty nearby communities[0]. I fear that groundwater crises in the Midwest
will continue to erode what I see as a rational and sustainable restriction on
the Lakes' water.

[0] [http://www.wpr.org/great-lakes-compact-councils-oks-
waukesha...](http://www.wpr.org/great-lakes-compact-councils-oks-waukeshas-
water-diversion-plan)

~~~
60654
Yeah, no doubt there will be challenges, so it's good that the Great Lakes
Charter [1] exists to regulate (ie. restrict) access from non-neighboring
communities.

But, even further away from the Great Lakes, the midwest seem roughly okay for
now - IA, IL, OH, IN, WI, all seem to have okay rainfall and ground water
levels. But the great plains states, KS, OK, TX, etc, which were historically
less arable, are set to experience greater changes for the worse :(

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Charter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Charter)

------
stretchwithme
When people use a resource, they should pay more than just the cost of
extracting it. They should also pay for its underlying value, which bears some
relation to the price you would pay if the resource were no longer available.

Such prices would signal to users the actual scarcity of the resource, giving
them incentive to reduce waste and find alternatives. It would also spur
development of desalination and other technologies.

That is one reason public ownership of a resource doesn't work very well. And
shared private ownership doesn't either, if you can use as much as you want.
These aren't really different. Just the size of the group.

But both could work if everybody pays a market price for what they use and
owners/taxpayers get paid for their share of what is used.

~~~
ehnto
I don't disagree, but it is still a scary prospect. Humans need water. We
don't need gas, or oil, heck we can even survive without electricity. We can
make do. But we die without water, and it is worrying to imagine a scenario
where some people can no longer afford water because the price went up due to
any number of factors. The price of a resource fluctuates for reasons not
always related to the actual resources inherent cost and demand dynamic, and
private companies don't have the same incentives as councils or government.

~~~
mhb
Should we base (US) water allocation on the electoral college outcome or the
popular vote? If you think it's scary having a market determine the allocation
of water, the prospect of allocating it with political currency should be
terrifying.

~~~
stretchwithme
If you look at the great resource shortages in the US in the 1970s, they
really only happened because the government imposed price controls.

I remember grade school being so cold in the winter because they used gas to
heat the school. The US only used domestic natural gas back then, so it
couldn't be blamed on some embargo.

------
jseliger
It is surprising to not see desalinization mentioned, here or in the article.
Consider [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-
the...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-
desalination-era-is-here/) or
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/534996/megascale-
desalina...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/534996/megascale-
desalination). I have no special knowledge of desalinization apart from a
distant relative who has worked on such projects, but the absence of it in the
discussion is notable given its recent prominence.

~~~
hyperbovine
Desal can potentially alleviate drought in urban environments -- at a steep
energy and environmental cost -- but is simply not in the running for
producing food at a large scale. For example, ag in California alone consumes
~30 million acre-feet (MAF) a year [1]. The total installed desal capacity
_worldwide_ is around 35 MAF/yr [2].

[1]
[http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108](http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108)
[2]
[https://www.researchgate.net/figure/272756219_fig2_Figure-2-...](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/272756219_fig2_Figure-2-Global-
installed-desalination-capacity-2010-2016-Adapted-from-11)

~~~
jcfrei
Desalination seems perfectly capable of creating enough fresh water for
agriculture. Desal requires plenty of electricity but with a big investment
into new nuclear power plants these demands could be easily met. Switching to
irrigation with desal water will come at a cost but I don't think it will be
dramatic in the developed world.

~~~
Elrac
Nuclear power has been ideologically poisoned, partly for good reasons, partly
for bad (I'm not taking sides here). Whatever the reasons, the effect is that
most politicos won't risk a voter stampede to the guy who didn't support
reactor building, and as a result, not just in the US, nuclear energy is on
its deathbed.

There's some irony in this, because one consequence is that a country's oldest
(and hence least safe) reactors will be kept online for longer than planned.

Happily, desal can be powered by solar as well, and in fact this is one
application that's OK to run just in the daytime, as the daytime's fresh water
can be buffered overnight.

------
taesis
I wonder if solar/wind/nuclear desalination plants would be better used piping
water into existing infrastructure or (somehow) refilling aquifers.

... and that is apparently already a thing XD [1].

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer_storage_and_recovery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer_storage_and_recovery)

~~~
ehnto
Hey, it's where I live! I had no idea we were doing such cool work in that
area. Australia as you can imagine, while often quite lush in many regions, is
quite acutely aware of water as a limited resource. Most places I have lived
have been under some kind of permenant water restriction policy and I think
that drills into most people that it's a pretty serious matter.

~~~
swiley
Australia seems to (in a similar way to California) have a difficult time
distributing scarce resources because they're afraid of letting market forces
do it. California would have more than enough water if its bizarre
distribution scheme didn't make it so cheap for people to grow crops like
alphalpha.

------
stuckagain
Food shock =~ meat shock. 95% of our agriculture is dedicated to raising meat.
Cutting meat production immediately relieves any and all water problems.

~~~
FlyingSnake
> 95% of our agriculture is dedicated to raising meat

That's a really tall claim, and I don't believe we don't dedicate resources to
grow wheat, rice, corn etc. Do you have sources for that?

~~~
stuckagain
How tall do you think it is, exactly?

------
ianai
Is anywhere not facing a water shortage? Where is it "best managed" or "least
bad"

~~~
ktRolster
Most of the USA East Cost, and the Gulf of Mexico for that matter, do fine. In
Alabama it almost rains too much for agriculture.

~~~
tfussell
We're definitely not fine in the Southeast right now. Large portions of
Georgia in particular are in extreme drought. See:
[http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?...](http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?GA)

------
jwatte
Well, in another 25 to 35 years, we'll hit the 3 degrees C warming that will
start collapsing the global food supply system. Wars have been fought over
less.

------
vivekd
I don't want to minimize the concerns of groundwater loss, but I don't see it
resulting in a food shortage as the article suggests. It just means we'll have
to desalinate. Yes that will mean food prices go up, but they also go up in
relation to other things like rising gas prices.

Preserving ground water is important, but tying it to looming food shortages
seems alarmist.

------
delbel
Unlikely a problem given the discovery of a largest fresh water bodies ever
known was just discovered: [http://inhabitat.com/scientists-discover-
freshwater-reserves...](http://inhabitat.com/scientists-discover-freshwater-
reserves-under-ocean-100-times-greater-than-what-humanity-has-used-
since-1900/)

~~~
stuckagain
_More_ fossil water may not be the solution we seek.

~~~
Hydraulix989
Explain?

~~~
Elrac
Like fossil fuels, fossil water is not a self-renewing, i.e. sustainable
resource. When it's used up, we're back where we started. Also, it seems this
stuff isn't really convenient to come by.

Granted, though, if 100 centuries' worth of water is really extractable, this
may be pushing the problem so far into the future that we can buy a lot of
timer for better solutions.

~~~
jwatte
The point of view of "business friendly" Republicans is generally that if the
resource lasts for 25 years, that will make life better for people who live
now. In that viewpoint, why would you prioritize some theoretical future
people's needs over the needs of people right now?

I think many knee jerk liberals haven't yet internalized this viewpoint, and
don't (yet) have great answers to that question. (Or turn it around: if you
think this is wrong, but don't have a good answer, that makes you a knee jerk
liberal!)

PS: I say this as a centrist liberal.

------
ilaksh
Just to throw it out there, there are alterative types of agriculture such as
ultra-local production, aeroponics, hydroponics, vertical farming, etc. that
_could_ be significantly less resource intensive if executed correctly on a
large scale.

I'm not saying that I am sure they will use less water but we could try and if
we focus on being efficient with electricity and land it could make a big
difference. For example aeroponics doesn't have to use artificial lighting.

------
toodlebunions
Fracking should help.

/s

------
apsec112
"Rising temperatures and growing demands for thirsty grains like rice and
wheat could drain much of the world’s groundwater in the next few decades, new
research warns."

Wait, what? A global water shortage is one problem that global warming would
actually help fix. There might be local droughts, but it's meteorologically
obvious that higher temperatures = higher evaporation = higher global
rainfall. A warm ocean pumps out more water vapor, and warm air can hold more
moisture (which is why Antarctica is so dry).

~~~
adekok
> t's meteorologically obvious that higher temperatures = higher evaporation =
> higher global rainfall

It doesn't help the Southern US if Central America has higher rainfall.

i.e. there is no guarantee that the rain falls where it's needed for farming.
Much the opposite, as it turns out.

~~~
foota
In theory, couldn't agricultural centers move?

~~~
pm90
Yes but in general politics comes in the way.

Agriculture is not just a way to make food, but a source of livelihood for
millions of people. Most non-developed countries depend on agriculture to
provide work for their people. This would affect them the most, putting most
of them out of work.

There's also the simple factor that countries want to be self-sufficient in
their food production.

