I’m not quite sure of the line of reasoning here. Apparently it doesn’t “save” water because not as much water is returned to the acquifer. It would seem that if less water is needed, then less water will be taken out of the acquifer in the first place. Relative to the acquifer taking out less should result in less loss.
However, the crux of the concern seems to be that the farmers will ask for MORE water (note that this results in MORE agricultural products) and this seems to be the primary objection.
Am I missing something?
It takes an “academic” to reason success is failure. The idiot reasoning applied to car gas mileage would be that if cars got 60 MPG they would be cheaper to operate and therefore people would drive more using more fuel... Never mind that the goal of getting higher efficiency was successful, or that people have to spend less for transportation improving their standard of living, it is bad because people drive more... The real goal wasn't higher efficiency or a higher standard of living. The real goal was less driving and in the case, less farming.
No, I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head....
You're thinking about this all wrong. You are assuming that the function of the farmer is to produce food and sell it at a profit to people who want and need food. This is a simplistic approach to the problem.
The function of the farmer is to occupy those big square states in the middle of the country and run pleasant farms that can be observed from airplane windows or (God forbid) from the Interstate. His job is to stand there in front of the field, preferably in a pair of worn denim coveralls with one of the straps unbuttoned, holding a pitchfork and looking picturesque. If he can get the missus to stand next to him, a la "American Gothic", that's a plus.
So the amount of water necessary is just the amount that it takes to make the farm look pretty. Anything more is a waste.
You didn’t miss anything here my friend. And there is nothing wrong with YOUR reasoning. You have just read the words of an enviro moron who is pissed not with the saving of water, but with the growth of an efficient industry providing a country with product for less money.
It is called efficiencey and it is what private industry does best. If it was gubmint run, it would use 10 times as much water and produce half as much porduct. this writer is a total moron.
Me too.
No, you got it right; what doesn’t seem to be covered is that by switching from flooding to drip irrigation, the air above the field will become more arid.
What if a deeper analysis of this effect shows that rainfall would be reduced as a result and replenishment even further reduced along with adding to “global warming”?