paganini

And here I am, thinking BDSM meant Bible Discussion & Study Meeting...

I partially agree with your comment.

I'm not saying that we should not improve lawns (by removing them), but rather, that we should also go after the big offenders, and maybe focus on them first because that's where the most immediate gains are.

Every time we have a drought, I see the old drama of taking shorter showers, people filling buckets in the shower to flush their toilets later, etc, all while farmers are planting Alfalfa to export it for cheap. IIRC, alfalfa was the largest consumer of irrigation water, which breaks down the farmers mantra that "we are using water to grow your food".

Even when you consider almonds, which we do eat, it's not a staple food. Nobody will starve if the almond industry collapses. They make a lot of money but mostly for a closed set of farmers. They're also not a large employer on the state.

I hate lawns. They suck water like nothing, require a lot of work and never look quite the way you want.

But let's keep things in perspective here. The big argument against lawns is water use. I agree. But in California, for example, all residential water use accounts for less than 15% of the total use of water in the state.

If we want to save the environment we should start with what's taking the remaining 85%.