Water: The current water system in California was designed for 16 million people. That water system was accomplished in the 1960's. Since that time, the government of California has allowed the population to increase by 22 million and still rising. But no significant improvements have been made to accommodate the population increase. It was Governor Browns father who made the improvement with money's to spare for and increase in both reservoir and dam construction back in the 1950-60's. In the 13 years of his governance of California how many improvement has Jerry Brown made to resolved to upgrade California's Water Resource issues. NONE! WHY? And Why isn't anything being done NOW by the State Legislature/Governor?
1
The farmers's share of the water has not increased in all this time. Rather it is the demands from cities that has increased and drained down the water. The cities are the problem. I wonder what they intend to eat once they've gotten rid of the farms?
2
There would be more than enough water for everyone and everything in the state if half the farmers in California didn't use open ditch irrigation, such as shown in the picture in this article.
1
Californians need to think and plan for other more economically viable options of water use.
The distribution of water to the high-needs agriculture industry is one of the main culprits in California’s water deficit situation after four years of drought. Remember that the four years of drought stretches from Texas to California. In Texas, many ranchers are forced to cull their herds of cattle for lack of water and forage.
I propose that California shut down its very expensive agriculture industry and diversion of water to the Central Valley and other parts of the State to grow water-hungry crops which are largely exported.
By comparison Cuba is a veritable garden with ample amounts of ideal growing conditions, good weather and lots of available water to sustain great potential in growing its agriculture industry. Now that he US has recognized Cuba, I also propose that Cuba be encouraged to expand its agriculture industry and potential to export its fruit, vegetables, nuts and meat to the US and, oh yes, also to California.
This option makes economic and environmental sense. I believe that importing agricultural products from Cuba would be less costly than growing them in California. If this option is not done, Californians will face even more severe water rationing than they are at present and experience quarrels and disputes among urban and rural communities in ugly proportions. Such a scenario and outcome would even threaten the economy of California itself.
The distribution of water to the high-needs agriculture industry is one of the main culprits in California’s water deficit situation after four years of drought. Remember that the four years of drought stretches from Texas to California. In Texas, many ranchers are forced to cull their herds of cattle for lack of water and forage.
I propose that California shut down its very expensive agriculture industry and diversion of water to the Central Valley and other parts of the State to grow water-hungry crops which are largely exported.
By comparison Cuba is a veritable garden with ample amounts of ideal growing conditions, good weather and lots of available water to sustain great potential in growing its agriculture industry. Now that he US has recognized Cuba, I also propose that Cuba be encouraged to expand its agriculture industry and potential to export its fruit, vegetables, nuts and meat to the US and, oh yes, also to California.
This option makes economic and environmental sense. I believe that importing agricultural products from Cuba would be less costly than growing them in California. If this option is not done, Californians will face even more severe water rationing than they are at present and experience quarrels and disputes among urban and rural communities in ugly proportions. Such a scenario and outcome would even threaten the economy of California itself.
1
For twenty-one years I worked and resided in Saudi Arabia and witnessed deserts boom into large swaths of farmlands because of desalinization. Millions of gallons of salt water per day were/are desalinated from the Arabian-Persian Gulf and pumped throughout the Kingdom. Yes, desalinization is more expensive than hoping and waiting for heavier snowfalls in the mountains melting and trickling into California water reservoirs, but desalinization ensures droughts will never again affect farmlands , city/ town water supplies, golf courses, and the lush estates in Beverly Hills, Palm Springs, La Jolla, Rancho Santa Fe, and other water-hungry wealthy communities. SouthWest/ Mid West states, and even Mexico could benefit from the water bounty.
5
Desalination is restrictively expensive. Saudi's can only afford it because of vast oil revenues. The cost is not only in dollars, but in the carbon foot print. Desalination requires a lot of energy, which means more electricity generation.
2
The Saudi's have cheap oil.
The rest of the world, not so cheap.
Imagine what a crop would cost to grow if each gallon of water came from the sea, was desalinated and then pumped hundreds of feet vertically and hundreds of miles horizontally. It all takes energy. Melt water flows by gravity as rain or snow and down stream.
The rest of the world, not so cheap.
Imagine what a crop would cost to grow if each gallon of water came from the sea, was desalinated and then pumped hundreds of feet vertically and hundreds of miles horizontally. It all takes energy. Melt water flows by gravity as rain or snow and down stream.
2
The Saudi's are stupidly wasting energy and will soon pay the price. Desalination has many downsides and is not a good solution for agriculture. Conservation needs to be taken seriously. Desalination would further increase Climate Change which is most likely leading to this drought.
1
What this means to me: food will be more expensive by next year.
1
Inheriting water rights is patently unfair.
You would instead give them away to the cities?
Perhaps they need to rethink the crops they are choosing to grow. Look at drought tolerant - amaranth, tepary beans, etc. that evolved to prosper in dry conditions.
It is likely to require marketing and getting them included in the list of covered crops in the USDA farmers gross revenue guarantee insurance run by the USDA's Risk Management Agency.
Yes the insurance is massively subsidized program but since it is there use it.
It is likely to require marketing and getting them included in the list of covered crops in the USDA farmers gross revenue guarantee insurance run by the USDA's Risk Management Agency.
Yes the insurance is massively subsidized program but since it is there use it.
Or shift to drought tolerant crops incldg getting them covered by the farmers gross revenue guarantee program.
Too bad the Feds and State cannot just tell them no wells and change crops or no water.
Regulators should never permit acquifers to be reduced at all. Monitoring wells can tell you levels and allow assessment of recharge rates. aif recharge is lagging - cut off use until systemnis back to 100%.
Too bad the Feds and State cannot just tell them no wells and change crops or no water.
Regulators should never permit acquifers to be reduced at all. Monitoring wells can tell you levels and allow assessment of recharge rates. aif recharge is lagging - cut off use until systemnis back to 100%.
1
Cut off Government workers from damaging California and the country.
Thank God government cannot stop wells on PRIVATE PROPERTY! I hope the water rights owners shove it down the government's throats and they are fired for costing taxpayer dollars. We need less Government!
Thank God government cannot stop wells on PRIVATE PROPERTY! I hope the water rights owners shove it down the government's throats and they are fired for costing taxpayer dollars. We need less Government!
Our agribusiness system exports ~ 50% of what is grown supported by massive subsidies is for export.
In Washington state our large winter wheat & apples are more like 80% for export
Personally I believe no subsidies should be available in any form for exported production.
In Washington state our large winter wheat & apples are more like 80% for export
Personally I believe no subsidies should be available in any form for exported production.
2
It's called business. It creates a tax base that contributes to the economy which is faltering under liberal leadership. Livestock is not the problem but the deep bull in Washington is. Agriculture creates jobs. Let's support Americans and their right to be free of Entitlements and government handouts.
1
If they shifted those livestock to pastured - ditching water needed for GMO grains & alfalfa hay - it looks better. More acreage needed but lower intensity. Same for dairy factories - pastured is better, cleaner & healthier for cows.
2
Robert - the job of government does not include tax payer subsidies for crops grown strictly for export. It also is not supposed to allow aquifer & near surface water - a public good - to be reduced below recharge rates.
Businesses don't deserve to be subsidized by the rest of us to support their export business, contaminating their neighbors drinking water, spreading pesticides & fungicides to all of us. In the case of factory livestock, spreading drug resistant infections to the citizenry near and far which is what they are doing now.
Businesses don't deserve to be subsidized by the rest of us to support their export business, contaminating their neighbors drinking water, spreading pesticides & fungicides to all of us. In the case of factory livestock, spreading drug resistant infections to the citizenry near and far which is what they are doing now.
4
Agriculture creates jobs. It's the economy we are talking about. There is no water shortage. Texas has reservoirs all around and they have plenty of water.
Food grows where water flows. Farmers are already on tight rations. Disease is rare and we have another incompetent government organization to handle that. Let's face it you do not want America to succeed. I am for jobs and people taking care of their families.
Food grows where water flows. Farmers are already on tight rations. Disease is rare and we have another incompetent government organization to handle that. Let's face it you do not want America to succeed. I am for jobs and people taking care of their families.
And, Costco frequently has Chilean sourced fresh blueberries which are excellent. Firm that supplies them is a California based farm operation but they source from Chile, Mexico, California, Oregon, Wa & Canada.
They must air freight the berries in to the USA.
They must air freight the berries in to the USA.
I thought the farmers got together and agreed to cut water use. Why isn't the state government mandating a 'no watering' mandate for residents? Why haven't they instituted a 2 tiered water charge for residents? How is it that the counties keep approving development further into the desert (inland)? And why on earth are farmers growing almond trees and other thirsty agriculture for export?!
Are there no forward politicians anywhere?
Are there no forward politicians anywhere?
1
Farmers have been yearly practicing the latest conservatory water principle for years.
Almonds sell all over the world. It's part of the economy and jobs. Don't we have enough unemployment? Don't we have enough people that have lost homes? Don't we have enough debt that will never get corrected until we elect conservatives. Unemployment lines are full. Crime is rampant. Jails are full. Don't you care about Americans?
Almonds sell all over the world. It's part of the economy and jobs. Don't we have enough unemployment? Don't we have enough people that have lost homes? Don't we have enough debt that will never get corrected until we elect conservatives. Unemployment lines are full. Crime is rampant. Jails are full. Don't you care about Americans?
Paying $1.99 for a head of iceberg lettuce may not sound like much, but wait until a few months from now. We're all going to have to fork out a lot more, and even more down the road. Sad, and scary. Hope they get some GD snow in the Sierra's next season, or we'll all be impacted.
Agribusiness does not pay for the actual cost of fresh water in California and that has encouraged them to be extremely wasteful in managing the state's fresh water resources.
The state should immediately begin charging agribusiness for the long-term cost of fresh water through reclamation, recycling and desalination and stop the destructive and dangerous practice of drilling deep wells into the water table.
This will encourage conservation, recycling and cost-effective business practices like drip irrigators. It will also stop the foolish practice of subsidizing businesses that use fresh water.
The cost of water should not depend on the vagaries of every year's rainfall. In the past, large investments in desalination plants and recycling systems created during times of need have been moth-balled when cheap water again becomes available in the reservoirs.
When agribusiness uses 80% of the state's fresh water resources, it must pay for the long-term cost of maintaining fresh water resources and replenishing the water tables and not get a free pass just because we have a rainy year.
The state should immediately begin charging agribusiness for the long-term cost of fresh water through reclamation, recycling and desalination and stop the destructive and dangerous practice of drilling deep wells into the water table.
This will encourage conservation, recycling and cost-effective business practices like drip irrigators. It will also stop the foolish practice of subsidizing businesses that use fresh water.
The cost of water should not depend on the vagaries of every year's rainfall. In the past, large investments in desalination plants and recycling systems created during times of need have been moth-balled when cheap water again becomes available in the reservoirs.
When agribusiness uses 80% of the state's fresh water resources, it must pay for the long-term cost of maintaining fresh water resources and replenishing the water tables and not get a free pass just because we have a rainy year.
2
What happened to the $87 Billion Train to nowhere? Why wasn't money rerouted to the construction of dams and reservoirs that will create jobs now and build the States water Capacity to take care of up to 50 million people. If the Government of California insist on allowing immigrants to come to and reside in California while not improving the water resources necessary to sustain those immigrants on top of the rest of California's residence, then a class action suit should be made against Jerry Brown and the State Legislative body for putting newly arrived immigrants in HARMS WAY.
$80 Billion on a Bullet train no one will ride and yet nothing on De-saltation plants while the Pacific sits there...
This is just a symptom of a much more fundamental problem globally. People; too many of them. Until we can determine and address sustainable population levels through education and availability of Family Planning Services we will jump from one scarcity to another.
2
It pains me to see this and I well understant that the drought is hurting - and will injure thousands of farmers, growers and their hired help. *That said, those same farmers and growers do not seem to understand anything beyond drilling deeper and pumping more. They saw this coming!
In similar yet different micro climates, 450-800 miles north, may grow for ourselves and some of our neighbors, growing only crops for which we a SURE we can support and making extensive use of freezing and canning. For the most part, those who have water rights share (produce) with those who do not. Even in an historically wet climate that is becoming dryer, we take a serious dim view of those who steal water. Coastal Oregon has not granted new water rights for ~~30 years; we too simple do not have it. On the bright side, those with righted water either grow the needed crops for sharing or find legitimate ways to share what we have. Obviously, our simple methods won't work for the BIG cities (There are reasons that we live in these small places, unincorporated spots of 500-1000 souls: we know virtually everyone, we share resources when we can and NO ONE goes hungry or cold.)
California's farmers won't give up that income stream, or bother to learn new methods. Most would rather give the same money to a politician who will maintain their current status. Something has to give - and it will. Cucumbers in January? No, I'll eat pickles.
In similar yet different micro climates, 450-800 miles north, may grow for ourselves and some of our neighbors, growing only crops for which we a SURE we can support and making extensive use of freezing and canning. For the most part, those who have water rights share (produce) with those who do not. Even in an historically wet climate that is becoming dryer, we take a serious dim view of those who steal water. Coastal Oregon has not granted new water rights for ~~30 years; we too simple do not have it. On the bright side, those with righted water either grow the needed crops for sharing or find legitimate ways to share what we have. Obviously, our simple methods won't work for the BIG cities (There are reasons that we live in these small places, unincorporated spots of 500-1000 souls: we know virtually everyone, we share resources when we can and NO ONE goes hungry or cold.)
California's farmers won't give up that income stream, or bother to learn new methods. Most would rather give the same money to a politician who will maintain their current status. Something has to give - and it will. Cucumbers in January? No, I'll eat pickles.
1
Digging deeper wells is just kicking the can down the road. Eventually, farmers will have to accept the idea that you can't grow thirsty crops in a desert.
13
I agree about the 'thirsty' plants, but disagree about the overall farmer comment. Farmers were there long before the millions of people that have moved in through the 60s and beyond. All invited by the governor's father. Too many people, especially politicians, think more is more. Less is more for CA and it's time to stop the development of the desert and the rest of the arid lands. There are whole towns that are empty, yet they keep building.
1
Food is a national security issue that will be rediscovered soon.
2
The big problem with this issue is that no one seems to be paying attention to the physical amount of water they are using, it's all about the money and how much extra it will cost to keep wasting water. It's like supply and demand is a law of physics and water will always be there for those who can pay the higher cost without actually using less. Water doesn't grow on trees you know.
4
Money (ie markets) has solved problems from a similarly severe drought in Australia. Let high-value consumers ( eg city water systems) buy water rights from lower-value farming operations. Agriculture only amounts to 2% of California's huge economy.
Native Californian, independent scholar. I have been driving up and down California for 45 years now. Most of the travel is on Interstate 5, straight up through the nation's premier source of vegetables. What are they growing, you ask? They are growing RICE, which takes a pond of water to grow in. Why? They are getting a farm subsidy to grow rice. Same with cotton; needs lots of water. They grow mountains of cotton. They do not give a flying ant about those of us who were born and raised here. The water politics of the western states is a scary read.
12
Hope you had a chance to read my post on this. 50% of agricultural water goes to raising animals to eat. It's not the cotton or the rice that uses all our water. 1,500 gallons for one pound of meat. It's cruel, inefficient and results in enormous use of grain, water and produces tons of green house gas, not to mention heart disease and cancer. Encourage people to eat plants and our water problems are solved.
1
So if you weren't born or raised here, it's okay if they don't care about you? Umm. I've never understood that born-in-California-and-therefore-better thing.
That said, I do wish they'd a) stop growing crops like rice and almonds; b) stop spraying their crops in the middle of the afternoon in the blazing sun, and c) use underground irrigation systems.
That said, I do wish they'd a) stop growing crops like rice and almonds; b) stop spraying their crops in the middle of the afternoon in the blazing sun, and c) use underground irrigation systems.
1
I worked in Congress in the 70s and had floor privileges before C-Span allowed members to keep track of proceedings. I was aghast at the votes for subsidies for rice and cotton in desert states. It makes no sense except to those farmers who inherited their land and had the "right" to continue.
3
I don't understand why Nestle is still being allowed to pump water out of there. Makes no sense to cut back the farmers & not them.
10
it would seem agriculture and drinking and bathing water should be the last things to be cut! cut the golf clubs, over-watering of parks and lawns, Nestle, oil fracking, etc. People absolutely have to drink water and eat food. everything else is optional. sounds like California politicians are doing what our federal government does these days - protect corporate profits ahead of the welfare of citizens.
Our greed and abuse is catching up. I opine bad outcomes for agricultural products all over the US and World.
1
A comprehensive solution is required. STEM expertise is critically important, much more so than the average person would anticipate. Remediation is always part of an all inclusive environmental engineering design.
"When the well runs dry, you cannot move the farm" was often uttered by Don Furry (1918 - 1998) who was not only a young Illinois farmer but also a successful California entrepreneur and visionary. Now, as 100s of 1000s of farming acres go fallow in California and senior water rights now being cut, Don's quote is now reality.
1
This is only the beginning of the Reverse Dust Bowl. By restricting surface water deliveries and limiting ground water pumping, its game over for agriculture in CA. Most of the land owners will survive, they'll get paid out in court, but the workers will lose their jobs. They ripple effect of business closures and layoff will be staggering. People are going to have to migrate or go on public assistance. Is FEMA available for droughts as well as floods? I'm paying flood insurance for hurricanes on the East Coast.....maybe its time for Federal drought insurance!
1
Agriculture in California will survive, but changes must be made. The farmers will make the changes themselves, without stupid laws. Just restricting the water supply will do it.
I'll buy Chilean grapes. They are pretty good, and already cheaper.
2
Half of agricultural water usage in California not just almonds and lettuce. 50% of the water used by agriculture is for producing animals as food. It takes roughly 1500 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of flesh for people to eat. Not to mention the amount of grain, 16 pounds for 1 pound of meat, but the greenhouse gases produces as a result of raising animals for food are immense.
Why doesn't California government promote plant based diets as a part of their overall water saving strategy? When we eat plants the environment wins big time and the health of the population would be greatly improved. After all, eating animals creates roughly the same amount of heart disease and cancer as cigarette smoking.
Why doesn't California government promote plant based diets as a part of their overall water saving strategy? When we eat plants the environment wins big time and the health of the population would be greatly improved. After all, eating animals creates roughly the same amount of heart disease and cancer as cigarette smoking.
6
The primary role of government is not to limit water to citizens, and productive farmers in particular. The role of government is to produce more water through funding public works, such as desalinization plants to produce MORE water.
1
The problem is simple... Too many humans, and too much "growth".
Apparently it will take a die-off event to correct the situation, since humans are too stupid and weak-willed for any alternative.
Apparently it will take a die-off event to correct the situation, since humans are too stupid and weak-willed for any alternative.
1
Democrat politicians throughout the state, continue to encourage more poor immigrants,to lock up the state,forever.Not great for us native Californians but who cares about the future.Not Democrat politicians.
2
The democrats in CA will never stop inviting immigrants and residents to the state. More people = more money in taxes. And Dems cannot stop spending on social engineering. Reps are big spenders as well. And both parties look out for those that contribute large dollars - billionaires and unions.
But the fact that CA has no law or constitutional requirement to pay for the laws they create each year will forever haunt the state. It's a sin what has happened to CA.
But the fact that CA has no law or constitutional requirement to pay for the laws they create each year will forever haunt the state. It's a sin what has happened to CA.
And the teaparty/GOP cares how? Let you bleed dry the water supply and then what?
1
Has the state estimated the amount of water that is lost to evaporation in the thousands of irrigation canals that feed the farms and then after flooding areas like almond tree fields? California needs to seriously start learning from places like Israel where drip irrigation is used everywhere in agriculture. Better use of water would save enormous amounts of water. Further, to grow specially water thirsty crops in desert environments should not be tolerated.
10
Probably the very best example of water management in the world isn't Israel, although they are very good at it, it's Las Vegas. A short car ride from LA and we can learn from the best water managers in the world. However, logic seems to be lost on politicians.
1
It has been estimated, and the estimate states that changing to pipe/drip irrigation would completely resolve California's water crisis. Full stop. But the costs will be great, so not only is a political non-starter but it's not even mentioned in articles such as this one. It's a lot easier for farmers to gripe about rights and complain about suburban lawns than it is for them to pay to upgrade their medieval irrigation systems.
1
California’s water management policies are hopelessly out of date. When my sons & I travel thru the Central Valley in CA we are amazed at how primitive the majority of the irrigation practices are. We are grape, blueberry & apple farmers in Chile, which climatically is much like CA, with a similar scarcity of water.
We, and our neighbors are virtually 100% drip irrigators; not only is it a much more precise way of getting the right amount of water to the right place, it also allows us to precisely provide nutrients to the plants in a cost effective way. And oh yes, water is expensive in Chile. In CA we see much of the crop land still irrigated via flood irrigation – terribly wasteful, but if water is free or very cheap, why make the sizable investment to install modern irrigation systems?
Finally, virtually all our cultivated plants are of clonal stock, bred for lower water usage & higher productivity. If and when GMO varietals become available for our crops, (we are looking at the Artic apple right now) we will use them if they offer an advantage. Never forget, farming is a tough business & we need all the tools that we can lay our hands on to improve yields in a sustainable manner.
We, and our neighbors are virtually 100% drip irrigators; not only is it a much more precise way of getting the right amount of water to the right place, it also allows us to precisely provide nutrients to the plants in a cost effective way. And oh yes, water is expensive in Chile. In CA we see much of the crop land still irrigated via flood irrigation – terribly wasteful, but if water is free or very cheap, why make the sizable investment to install modern irrigation systems?
Finally, virtually all our cultivated plants are of clonal stock, bred for lower water usage & higher productivity. If and when GMO varietals become available for our crops, (we are looking at the Artic apple right now) we will use them if they offer an advantage. Never forget, farming is a tough business & we need all the tools that we can lay our hands on to improve yields in a sustainable manner.
48
Thank you I will skip. Anything that is a GMO product. While it may help grow the crop, nutritionally it is not the best for your body. Some produce does have a.defense against disease ect like sweet potatos however any kind of berries have massive amounts of chemicals from peticides on them.
I agree that a drip system would be a better way to grow the crops. Here in Arizona most of the zeriscaping in Phoenix and Tucson are on a drip system which waters early a.m. or evening becaude of the evaporation.
I agree that a drip system would be a better way to grow the crops. Here in Arizona most of the zeriscaping in Phoenix and Tucson are on a drip system which waters early a.m. or evening becaude of the evaporation.
1
50% of agricultural water is used for raising animals to eat. Roughly 1500 gallons for 1 pound of flesh. Encourage plant based diets for everyone and there will be plenty of water, less pain and suffering for animals, less green house gases and a healthier population.
1
thank you for your wisdom - and please, no GMO apples! Stay natural. We do not need frankenfoods loaded with pesticides.
2
On the subject of water use, those wanting to become more informed might like to read this:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/25/the-disappearing-river
In fact, they have covered with their usual excellence a variety of water issues, and it helps to know a bit more about the history.
For example:
"If transporting water from one side to the other were impossible, most of the people who live in Denver and other Eastern Slope cities would have to move."
"It powers the hydroelectric plants at the Hoover and Glen Canyon dams, is the principal source for the country’s two biggest man-made reservoirs, and supports recreational activities that are said to be worth twenty-six billion dollars a year. Some of its southern sections attract so many transient residents during the winter that you could almost believe it had overflowed its banks and left dense alluvial deposits of motorboats, Jet Skis, dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, trailers, mobile homes, fifth wheels, and R.V.s.
"All that human utility has costs; the river suffers, in varying degrees, from many of the same kinds of overuse and environmental degradation that threaten freshwater sources around the world."
and, most difficult:
"the first person to make “beneficial use” of water gains the right to use that quantity for that purpose forever, and that the claim takes precedence over every claim made later."
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/25/the-disappearing-river
In fact, they have covered with their usual excellence a variety of water issues, and it helps to know a bit more about the history.
For example:
"If transporting water from one side to the other were impossible, most of the people who live in Denver and other Eastern Slope cities would have to move."
"It powers the hydroelectric plants at the Hoover and Glen Canyon dams, is the principal source for the country’s two biggest man-made reservoirs, and supports recreational activities that are said to be worth twenty-six billion dollars a year. Some of its southern sections attract so many transient residents during the winter that you could almost believe it had overflowed its banks and left dense alluvial deposits of motorboats, Jet Skis, dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, trailers, mobile homes, fifth wheels, and R.V.s.
"All that human utility has costs; the river suffers, in varying degrees, from many of the same kinds of overuse and environmental degradation that threaten freshwater sources around the world."
and, most difficult:
"the first person to make “beneficial use” of water gains the right to use that quantity for that purpose forever, and that the claim takes precedence over every claim made later."
3
Just off the top of my head, why aren't open canals a relic? Surely there can be water savings if water were to flow through pipes, savings in both evaporation and seepage, probably a greater cause of water loss depending on the age, original construction, and maintenance of an open canal. Yet the photos of California irrigation systems are routinely open canals.
8
Take the salt out by processing, actually it's vaporization, and use the ocean water. Then all farmers can have water. As for lawns, time for californians to give up lawns. And don't keep refilling those swimming pools unless there is more than enough water to drink and to grow crops.
3
There is more than enough water to drink and grow crops, but wasteful farm irrigation practices result in much of that water going to waste. See the post from Richard Huber about how farmers deliver water to crops in Chile.
There is a slight hope the weather may change. One of the possible causes is an active underwater volcano off the coast of Oregon.It has been warming the Pacific water and helping disrupt the weather patterns. Over the past few weeks, the magma has become more active, leading scientists to speculate it may finally erupt. The theory is that the eruption would allow the weather patterns to return to normal.
It´s time to leam and take on a fair and open process organic farming has a future conservation and promotion of biodiversity ehancement and management of the coastline and the economic development of rural areas is to cultivate sustainability certify the quality consume better
2
How have we gotten by even this long without the government telling us all how much water we can use? We need a blue-ribbon presidential commission to study the effect of hamburger and almond consumption on the demand for water, followed by the creation of a new, cabinet-level, federal Department of Water. That'll fix everything for sure.
1
If you can be serious, please offer an alternative to government involvement.
Please. NO!
This is absolutely necessary. The Sierra Nevada snowpack is only 5% of normal. No one wants cuts to happen. If action is not taken, irreparable harm could be done to the aquifers. Business as usual cannot no longer be as usual.
The land supports agriculture but the land cannot be stressed to the point of ruination. Money will be lost. Profits will be diminished. There is no other alternative.
Water is never private. It is shared by all who use it. Just because a well is drilled on private land, that doesn't mean the water pulled out did not originate from some other private or public location. We all drink from the same spigot.
Sacrifices must be shared by all who drink from that spigot so all will continue to have some water. Even raising the price won't fix the problem because there just isn't enough water to sell.
We all sink or swim together or blow away in a dust storm together.
The land supports agriculture but the land cannot be stressed to the point of ruination. Money will be lost. Profits will be diminished. There is no other alternative.
Water is never private. It is shared by all who use it. Just because a well is drilled on private land, that doesn't mean the water pulled out did not originate from some other private or public location. We all drink from the same spigot.
Sacrifices must be shared by all who drink from that spigot so all will continue to have some water. Even raising the price won't fix the problem because there just isn't enough water to sell.
We all sink or swim together or blow away in a dust storm together.
2
I'm not an engineer, but the comments about "just build a water pipeline" seem pretty far fetched. First there's the cost of the infrastructure - who's going to pay for it? Not to mention the technology itself - my guess is that it's a lot more complicated than "just" laying some pipes to collect excess rainwater from all over Texas and Louisiana, and move it 2,000 miles away. Here in Chicago we have something called the Deep Tunnel project - a tunnel system under the metro area to store excess rainwater to prevent flooding. Just building this collection system has taken 30 years and $3 billion dollars, and it's not even complete - I can't imagine what would be involved to move that water elsewhere. But most of all, the problem is that climate is unpredictable. Texas might have excess rainwater now, but it's just emerging from a multiyear drought - and some parts of the state are STILL considered to be in near-drought conditions. When El Nino passes, there isn't going to be any water to move. A better plan would be for California, and other areas subject to climate disasters to have a long term plan - not just how to get water, but how to adjust population and agriculture patterns for the possible future when there is never enough water.
1
The irony of this article is that California has a extensive coastline bordering on one of the largest bodies of water in the world, and yet it has no water. Of course, that body of water is salt water, but it underscores the basic issue. There has been extremely poor land use and planning and massive over population. Now, California has to face the consequences. It reminds one of the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner: "Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink."
2
Everybody seems to be blaming others for using all the water. We all need to conserve to get through this crisis. Farmers need to farm and fishermen need to fish. But farmers, identified correctly as users of most of the water usage could be encouraged and helped to conserve. Drip irrigation, dry farming and any other methods of conservation should be encouraged by government actions (subsidies) and waste should be discouraged (by rules and fines).
The antiquated first rights system (whomever first signed up for the rights to runoff water back in the early 1900s) needs to be replaced by a more eco-sensitive system that addresses the needs of the state and the nation.
California produces half of the produce of the country. It's not only in the interest of California but in the interest of the nation to find a workable solution that benefits us all.
The antiquated first rights system (whomever first signed up for the rights to runoff water back in the early 1900s) needs to be replaced by a more eco-sensitive system that addresses the needs of the state and the nation.
California produces half of the produce of the country. It's not only in the interest of California but in the interest of the nation to find a workable solution that benefits us all.
2
California agriculture needs to be rationalized. People lived for thousands of years without getting certain produce all year round. In a search for "convenience" we bring destruction. The reality is that much of California is dry and goes through droughts like this. All the sunshine doesn't make up for a lack of water. Piping water from hundreds of miles away is a waste of energy (unless you can do it by gravity like NYC's water supply). Also there has been enormous amounts of natural habitat destruction. Then stories coming out about how much certain parts of California have sunk by many meters because of the pumping of groundwater. You have a man made environmental disaster in the fake Salton Sea. It's just ridiculous. In our house we refuse to contribute to this - so we stopped buying California produce a while ago. In spring, summer, autumn most (admittedly not all) the produce we buy are local. We shop at farmer's markets as often as possible. We are still adjusting for the winter but we try to buy things that required the least amount of shipping. We also have "re-learned" (as people did for centuries) to preserve as much as possible for back yard gardens. The idea that the country can't survive without food grown in a desert is pretty ridiculous.
6
I believe most of California's farmers are actually corporations these days. And, corporations being "people" who never die means that they really don't care much about those of us who do have a "termination" date. I don't know of course, but I would not be surprised if many of the ultra large "farms" out in the California desert are actually owned by foreign corporations which do not care if we mere mortals have our short lives destroyed by ultra high prices for both water and food. My father, who grew up on a ranch in Texas in the early 20th Century once commented that we should never let another country control our food supply. Think about it for a moment.
8
Climate remains such a critical element of this discussion. If the storms remain warmer and we are no longer able to hold the water as snow packs in the Sierras to be "natually" released over the course of the summer months, California's ability to produce food remains challenged. Building soil carbon levels through compost application, cover cropping, mulching, and no-till farming practices will dramatically reduce water needs and create more percolation for streams, aquifers, and deeper rooted crops becasue soil carbon (organic matter) holds water like a sponge. At the same time it will pull dramatic levels of CO2 from the atmosphere. This is the only technology available to reduce the amount of CO2 in a climate warming world. Natural systems are complex, we must begin working with what builds resilency, reduces legacy levels of CO2, and not just continue to make small adjustments to methods and systems that continue to degrade natural systems. We need regenerative forms of grazing, farming, and even gardening to insure food supplies and provide a path back to CO2 levels that will return us to more liveable climate patterns. But this supercedes special interests, outdated science, and foot-dragging. Can we rise above these human anchors to real change?
3
This is a national problem, not a situation just local to California. It's effects will be national if not international because of the rising price of food production. Eventually all of us will be tasked with evaluating our habits and deciding what we are willing to pay for the delusion (and it is delusional) that our water supply is infinite and our individual consumption does not require our conscious conservation. Denial of climate change does not make it not true. Here in Oklahoma in what has now come be be called "Green Country", we have no naturally occurring lakes. All are man made as a result of damming rivers and streams. It h as been a mighty effort by the Corp of Engineers to prevent another dust bowl, but it has given locals without a reference point a means of denying that lack of water is a problem as long as we don't have grass fires.
14
In addition to an antiquated water-rights system to regulate surface water use by agricultural interests, California is one of the few states with unregulated groundwater pumping, especially by farmers of the San Joaquin Valley aquifer. The groundwater free-for-all caused by the dramatic jump in well-drilling has very serious, short and long-term, consequences on the California landscape and its citizens.
Generations of farmers have relied on groundwater for their crops. Recently, over-pumping because of the drought, combined with the switch to water-thirsty crops has made the situation unsustainable.
Land subsidence caused by the historic extraction of groundwater is now a major problem in the San Joaquin Valley. The consequences include changes in water flow (rivers, streams, and wetlands), loss of water quality, increasing damage to infrastructure (of roads, bridges, and canals) that is already under-funded, soil erosion, and the need to dig deeper and deeper wells, increasing conflict among farmers. Furthermore, over-pumping is also causing the structural collapse of the aquifer, permanently decreasing its capacity to hold water.
As if all this wasn’t enough, a recent paper, Uplift and seismicity driven by groundwater depletion in central California (Amos et al. 2014 Nature 509:483) suggests that groundwater extraction may affect earthquake risk, both in smaller faults close to the San Joaquin Valley as well as the San Andreas Fault.
Generations of farmers have relied on groundwater for their crops. Recently, over-pumping because of the drought, combined with the switch to water-thirsty crops has made the situation unsustainable.
Land subsidence caused by the historic extraction of groundwater is now a major problem in the San Joaquin Valley. The consequences include changes in water flow (rivers, streams, and wetlands), loss of water quality, increasing damage to infrastructure (of roads, bridges, and canals) that is already under-funded, soil erosion, and the need to dig deeper and deeper wells, increasing conflict among farmers. Furthermore, over-pumping is also causing the structural collapse of the aquifer, permanently decreasing its capacity to hold water.
As if all this wasn’t enough, a recent paper, Uplift and seismicity driven by groundwater depletion in central California (Amos et al. 2014 Nature 509:483) suggests that groundwater extraction may affect earthquake risk, both in smaller faults close to the San Joaquin Valley as well as the San Andreas Fault.
5
Thank you Suzanne Wheat for mentioning a Huge source for the 80% agriculture demands: Cows. What a delicate topic to everyone enjoying their burgers, bacon and dairy. A Latte is more carbon (including water!) intensive than a cappuccino due to cows. Most of that alfalfa and hay is being used for... what? And how much of it is being exported (yes, good for the economy). But, come on now, we could all help this dire H20 situation by changing our diets to more plant based (which yes, does have protein), especially the ones that don't require as much Water. Almonds... another topic. Almost 50% of that 80% agriculture is Cow-Related, not berries.
18
Would love to see a carbon and water-use comparison among gallons of cow, goat, almond, hemp and soy milk. I assume carbon cost is related also to transportation costs. Another reason to eat local food product.
I drove to Sacramento airport some ten days ago. Saw vast fields of brown earth being watered by wasteful spray irrigation in the middle of the day. The farmers don't take it seriously yet apparently.
27
of course it's possible that I missed this along the dialog, but I haven't read word one about cutting back water for golf courses...
30
Correcting mistakes in the past in order to move forward is always a good idea. Some of the agricultural water rights permitted in the past make no sense for the future of California.
15
Remember when nuts were just nuts? Something you bought in bulk and they weren't flavored to be wasabi almonds? I understand that creating a market for these products with the individual packets, favors, etc. helps sell them but who pays the price for added packaging, I think you need to look at big corporations and marketing as partly to blame for over production and therefore, make them pay for the distribution (water) rights.
12
I guess I have a different memory--of nuts being expensive and used only for special occasions, bought in small amounts and doled out for favorite recipes or bought for bridge club with the hope that there would be leftovers for us the next day. Mother's nut bread was a Christmas gift given to those nearest and dearest and for Christmas morning breakfast.
1
Finally! Agricultural consumption is out of control.
9
Whenever people deny the effects of Global Warming I always tell them "It doesn't need your belief to make it so. It isn't Tinkerbell". These effects are coming and those who deny the facts will be of no use when figuring out the solutions. We're in the same boat, even if that boat is on dry land.
23
Rick, was the Calofornia drought of the 1970s due to global warming? How about the dust bowl? How about the mini ice age in centuries past? This is just a drought cycle like the one which just ended in Texas. Correct?
Thermal, in the picture, is on Colorado River sourced water an entirely different issue than the one the article is about. You know, California is a very large state.
8
As long as it's a commodified payscale, the people using the most water just keep using it and paying for it. At some point there has to be an actual max usage cutoff for major users. I read recently in a study, in San Diego anyway, that lower income households are conserving year over year much more than higher income households, clearly because the latter can afford it.
I would like to see some incentive for farming innovation that would reduce water evaporation like drip irrigation, and this should be paid for by the water/agro-barons and banks that have bought up all the wells and public water systems.
I would like to see some incentive for farming innovation that would reduce water evaporation like drip irrigation, and this should be paid for by the water/agro-barons and banks that have bought up all the wells and public water systems.
25
5th year of extreme drought yet the politicians dilly dally as usual and coming up with schemes that are not conducive to the population of some close to 38 million people. With their life style of some three generations,that will not change radically. While the politicians live high on the hog and impose restrictions on people like farmers,who are loosing not only their livelihood, farms, property and a way of life. The central valley aquifer is being emptied at a rate that will soon collapse and destroy the underground infrastructure for ever. Yet the greed creed with it's crooked timber of humanity cares less. While the relentless climate change is here with a vengeance, & soon to follow with dust storms that will rip off & blow away the top soil. It is just not California that is in this predicament. The big three reservoirs : Lake Mead, Lake Powell and Lake Mohave are also in the worst shape as ever, effects Nevada, parts of Utah and Arizona and yet there in no concerted effort by CA, NV AZ and the US Government to develop a sound and viable plan while the Republicans and Democrats self interest self righteous politician in Congress, in which over 90% of the people have no confidence bicker and as usual waste, abuse, mismanage, misappropriate taxpayers money with coercion, reckless abandon and impunity. When common sense dictate that desalination is about the only solution. Plus sea water pipe lines from the West coast to C. Valley to fill aquifer.
11
California farmers plant for the world market. The high demand for the products makes cost of water marginal (at current rates). The water shortage is a mirage.
1
But some of us want farmers to pay the true cost of water, not a heavily-subsidized cost.
13
The cost of Ag water in CA will always be "marginal" as it is, and always has been, highly subsidized. That's precisely the point and a large part, and cause of, the problem. It's hard to find a more egregious example of corporate welfare run amok in this country. If Ag users were required to pay what amounted to a "market" rate, we would likely begin to see Ag usage rates - and more importantly - irrigation techniques (see Israel for many examples) - that would approach sustainability. Fundamental market forces can be very effective in keeping demand in line with supply, but none of that works if price is, as it is here, way out of whack with reality. Demand for scarce resources is price elastic if price is market, not subsidy, driven. Until that's addressed, don't expect to see an equilibrium that's viable long term.
And they will also have to address groundwater usage as well - this is regulated in many parts of the country. Otherwise, any fix aimed at surface water use will be undermined. Water usage has to be addressed holistically as surface and groundwater supplies are inextricably linked over the long term.
None of this is new and current water use policies may have made sense in an age of manifest destiny - and historically wetter climes. But we are a long way from those days, goals and conditions.
And they will also have to address groundwater usage as well - this is regulated in many parts of the country. Otherwise, any fix aimed at surface water use will be undermined. Water usage has to be addressed holistically as surface and groundwater supplies are inextricably linked over the long term.
None of this is new and current water use policies may have made sense in an age of manifest destiny - and historically wetter climes. But we are a long way from those days, goals and conditions.
We may be "ignorant fools" on the East Coast but in my neck of the woods, Northern NY, we've gotten about an inch of rain today. Who knows how long our good fortune will last?
Perhaps we can't have certain fruits or nuts from California (or elsewhere in the world) and will have to eat more locally produced seasonal produce. That may be healthier, tastier in the long run and what our great grandparents used to do.
Here's to local farmer's markets!
Perhaps we can't have certain fruits or nuts from California (or elsewhere in the world) and will have to eat more locally produced seasonal produce. That may be healthier, tastier in the long run and what our great grandparents used to do.
Here's to local farmer's markets!
21
I challenge scientists and the agriculture people to devise a cheap way to conserve moisture in the soil as the California climate is very dry and evaporative.
2
Cadiz land company has solution using natural underground storage. But faces filibustering by environmental extremists. It's one piece of the puzzle and small step in solving water management issues but shows how dysfunctional the state of affairs is so things will have reach far more critical and lives and livelihoods will have to be lost before steps can be taken in desparation
The legal battles, which anyone who understands even a little about this issue, will be 1) certain and, 2) to an extent (to the water policy wonks) intellectually interesting - up to the point this issue becomes truly dire (which it almost certainly will). At that point the general public will become focused on the basic fact that this is WATER - something we humans have become accustomed to needing for our actual survival - and the "legal" rights will become secondary to the basic human right we all have to how water is "owned" and allocated. Then, and probably only then...we will make some necessary headway on how we do things. I give it 10 years to get to this point.
12
In 1977 the severe drought then accomplished two changes. One, it forced the "Department of Water Resources" (DWR) to change its name to "Department of Drought Control" (DDC). Secondly the DDC came out with predictions that it would take more than 5 years of above average rain and snow to get back to normal. Then in the fall of that 1977 the way above average rain and snow fall bought things back to normal. Nature has a way to correct itself if and when needed. Let's see what happens this year.
1
i believe that the important rights are pre 1913 water rights not pre 1903. the thing about that date is that persons with pre 1913 water rights do not file any paperwork or pay any annual fees to the state for their rights.
however, i have been told that there are no recognized pre 1913 rights. if you go to the state website you will find no pre 1913 water rights listed..... some people may be contesting this but the state does not recognize any pre 1913 water rights.
it is an important development when the state takes control of a legal right andy it will be interesting to see how this plays out. whiskey's for drinking and water's for fighting.
however, i have been told that there are no recognized pre 1913 rights. if you go to the state website you will find no pre 1913 water rights listed..... some people may be contesting this but the state does not recognize any pre 1913 water rights.
it is an important development when the state takes control of a legal right andy it will be interesting to see how this plays out. whiskey's for drinking and water's for fighting.
2
Water rights need to be redesigned in the west as they no longer serve the needs of the citizens. The change in water rights will have an impact on the value of individual land parcels, so the mechanism for imposing the new water rights laws should include a method for reimbursing those who lose land value from revenues derived from those who gain.
7
What is needed to accompany this change is strict regulation limiting the amount of ground water that farmers (or any water user/processor) can use. Digging wells is not the answer.
When will we take seriously the probability of an extended of drought of decades and start to build desalination plants. Or will we do the usual thing and wait until there is no fresh water available and then run in circles trying to find sites for desalination plants. Of course by then developers will have the choice land occupied with houses and buildings using water at a prodigious rate.
When will we take seriously the probability of an extended of drought of decades and start to build desalination plants. Or will we do the usual thing and wait until there is no fresh water available and then run in circles trying to find sites for desalination plants. Of course by then developers will have the choice land occupied with houses and buildings using water at a prodigious rate.
12
Oh that's good. Our oceans are under assault already so let's continue to contribute to the problem by taking water from it. How about coming to the conclusion that man does NOT have some god given right to live wherever he darn well pleases?
The tragedy of the commons once more, but perhaps even moreso, the tragedy of a temporary industry of our West Coast. For decades, how much industry was out there, out west? How much high tech, urban industry?
Was agriculture just an early way for the West Coast to capitalize on its comparatively new territory and resources?
If so, then it is maybe just a tragedy of business, of the market. California can't afford, and does not really need, to pour these resources any longer into that industry. The heyday is over, and nature has called the game.
It's not the end of the world, trust me.
What would you call the agricultural equivalent of the Rust Belt?
Was agriculture just an early way for the West Coast to capitalize on its comparatively new territory and resources?
If so, then it is maybe just a tragedy of business, of the market. California can't afford, and does not really need, to pour these resources any longer into that industry. The heyday is over, and nature has called the game.
It's not the end of the world, trust me.
What would you call the agricultural equivalent of the Rust Belt?
9
This is a step in the right direction, but is only part of the solution. Not only does the use of surface water and ground water need strict regulation, but what is grown using that water needs to be seriously regulated. Water dependent crops should be grown in areas of the country where water availability is not a problem, leaving drought resistant crops to those areas suffering water shortages. For those people that don't believe climate change is a problem, welcome to the real world.
30
Where would you suggest that the water intensive crops be planted? Nearly every part of the United States has suffered drought in the last century. And how do you propose regulating what crops can be grown by whom? The biggest concern is for trees, such as fruit and nut trees, which will die if not provided at least some water. Should people with trees have priority over those with row crops, which are planted every year?
Climate change makes predicting rainfall very difficult, if not impossible. There is historical evidence that the American Southwest has suffered droughts which lasted well over 100 years. If California were to experience drought for 20 years, all of the U.S. would see food prices increase substantially. Perhaps we will have to go to greenhouse farming, with controlled environments for growing fruits and nuts.
Simply trying to regulate the problem away will probably only make things worse.
Climate change makes predicting rainfall very difficult, if not impossible. There is historical evidence that the American Southwest has suffered droughts which lasted well over 100 years. If California were to experience drought for 20 years, all of the U.S. would see food prices increase substantially. Perhaps we will have to go to greenhouse farming, with controlled environments for growing fruits and nuts.
Simply trying to regulate the problem away will probably only make things worse.
Kill agriculture and jobs for the Delta Smelt. Way to go. But no problem, raise taxes to put the farmer workers who are forced out of work on the dole. Mission accomplished in Liberal Land!!!
2
What on earth does the Delta smelt have to do with the consequences of four consecutive years of historically low rainfall?
But why try to develop even a minimal understanding of a devilishly complicated issue when it is so much easier -- and viscerally satisfying -- to heave a rhetorical Molotov into the conversation?
FNDS -- Fox News Derangement Syndrome strikes again.
But why try to develop even a minimal understanding of a devilishly complicated issue when it is so much easier -- and viscerally satisfying -- to heave a rhetorical Molotov into the conversation?
FNDS -- Fox News Derangement Syndrome strikes again.
1
I am puzzled by your comment. I live in California and we value our farmers and don't wish to put them out of work. As for the Delta Smelt? I don't think the need to save species from annihilation is some kind of an attempt to put farmers out of business. Many Californians are liberal, but you know what? We eat too!
I live in Sacramento, CA and I have resigned myself to the fact of a brown lawn and more expensive produce.
Taking a global perspective, water may become the new oil and we may see wars fought over water. We think of water as a renewable resource, unlike oil which is nonrenewable, but fossil aquifers are being depleted for agriculture much faster than they can be replenished, not just in California but in Northern India, Iraq and Syria. Turkey, a water rich-country, uses water as a weapon against Iraq and Syria.
Water scarcity is a global problem and one solution among many is smart irrigation, using automated watering technology that allows a farmer to irrigate with more precision and less waste, using computers and sensors detecting soil moisture to regulate the amount of water needed by crops. The system is already in use in several European countries and has cut water consumption by 50%. The Pacific Institute claims that the Tom Rogers' almond farm decreased water consumption by 20% using smart irrigation. Technological innovation has helped solve a number of our problems and this may be another example.
Taking a global perspective, water may become the new oil and we may see wars fought over water. We think of water as a renewable resource, unlike oil which is nonrenewable, but fossil aquifers are being depleted for agriculture much faster than they can be replenished, not just in California but in Northern India, Iraq and Syria. Turkey, a water rich-country, uses water as a weapon against Iraq and Syria.
Water scarcity is a global problem and one solution among many is smart irrigation, using automated watering technology that allows a farmer to irrigate with more precision and less waste, using computers and sensors detecting soil moisture to regulate the amount of water needed by crops. The system is already in use in several European countries and has cut water consumption by 50%. The Pacific Institute claims that the Tom Rogers' almond farm decreased water consumption by 20% using smart irrigation. Technological innovation has helped solve a number of our problems and this may be another example.
56
Dear Mr. Amparo: You are quite right. I'd be surprised if President Obama isn't regularly briefed on the problem of scarce water and the dangerous political instability and conflicts that it will cause, unless we do something mitigate the worse effects of water shortages. The problem of scarce water and the misery and conflicts that it will cause are part of the C.I.A.'s intelligence gathering and the Pentagon's military planning. And climate change is both a cause and an exacerbating circumstance of water shortages.
Yet, while the foregoing is true, our politicians, especially the Republican Party, act as if climate change isn't real and as if increasing dryness and droughts are some act of a mythical God, rather than acknowledging that climate change and demands for potable water that exceed supply are artificial results of human activity and government policy and inaction. And there seems to be no way to end this political insanity on the existential issue of climate change and its results.
The long-term prospects for humanity look dreadful.
Yet, while the foregoing is true, our politicians, especially the Republican Party, act as if climate change isn't real and as if increasing dryness and droughts are some act of a mythical God, rather than acknowledging that climate change and demands for potable water that exceed supply are artificial results of human activity and government policy and inaction. And there seems to be no way to end this political insanity on the existential issue of climate change and its results.
The long-term prospects for humanity look dreadful.
1
There's Great Bear Lake, Great Slave Lake, the Great Lakes and Lake Winnipeg just north of us. The Brazos river is still after 2 week looks, 30 feet above flood level draining freely out to the Gulf. More flooding expected this weekend. Louisiana is also flooding again. Why not build the infra structure to store and transfer water in and around the West and not only provide water to the cities and farms in drought stricken areas but expand or ability to farm in desert areas? There's a lot of mouths to feed around the world with more being born every day. Are we going to let them starve?
6
Northern California also has plenty of free-flowing water and no doubt a large reservoir of ground water that the state could divert to Central Valley farmers and to Southern California.
The State of Washington also has great amounts of fresh water that could divert to California.
Water supply solutions do exist. Leadership will have to exert itself to make water supply solutions happen.
The State of Washington also has great amounts of fresh water that could divert to California.
Water supply solutions do exist. Leadership will have to exert itself to make water supply solutions happen.
1
How much time and money are you willing to commit to moving water vast distances across the country to California? Any such diversion projects would be very expensive and take a long time to build. How much money will come out of your pocket in taxes (most large water projects are taxpayer-funded) or out of your food prices?
5
Most of the water in California today goes not to feed starving people but to agribusiness to maximizes return to shareholders with high value products - wine, almonds, walnuts and alfalfa. This has been well covered in the NYT. So the real question is not about people starving but is "Are we going to let global shareholders [many of whom fund attacks against the US and our allies] suffer less than maximum returns on investment?"
While the water infrastructure is built by taxpayers it is multi-nationals who benefit. If agribusiness wants to pony up to build a canal to Texas, fine with me but I won't pay for it.
While the water infrastructure is built by taxpayers it is multi-nationals who benefit. If agribusiness wants to pony up to build a canal to Texas, fine with me but I won't pay for it.
14
What took them so long to realize that water is far more important than sales or profits. Maybe, now, the rest of the country will take note.
16
The agricultural industry uses 80% of California's water yet produces only 2% of GDP.
This is absolutely a necessary step.
The world does not have a water shortage problem. It has a shortage of cheap water.
Many municipalities have begun reclaiming treated water and returning it to the water tables. It is about half the price of desalinating water.
Farmers need to pay the full cost of water and the cost of such should be reflected in the costs of produce.
Each almond takes a gallon of water to produce. There is no reason Californians should subsidize this water hog.
This is absolutely a necessary step.
The world does not have a water shortage problem. It has a shortage of cheap water.
Many municipalities have begun reclaiming treated water and returning it to the water tables. It is about half the price of desalinating water.
Farmers need to pay the full cost of water and the cost of such should be reflected in the costs of produce.
Each almond takes a gallon of water to produce. There is no reason Californians should subsidize this water hog.
61
"The world does not have a water shortage problem. It has a shortage of cheap water."
Not quite. According to a report on water in the Economist a couple of years ago, the problem is not a shortage problem, but a pricing problem: it's too cheap, and wasting is encouraged around the world, from unrepaired leaky pipes in India to inappropriate production or thirsty crops in desert areas.
Not quite. According to a report on water in the Economist a couple of years ago, the problem is not a shortage problem, but a pricing problem: it's too cheap, and wasting is encouraged around the world, from unrepaired leaky pipes in India to inappropriate production or thirsty crops in desert areas.
5
Almonds, pound for pound, deliver more protein than meat for less water. Significantly, hugely less water. Stop eating so much meat (and dairy) and we use a lot less water. We need to focus on the real water "hogs". And it ain't nuts.
3
GDP and water usage have no relation to each other. I'm neither s a farmer nor a supporter of wasteful practices. I know where my food comes from, though. California farmers feed the world - including you - so this isn't so cut and dried, so to speak. If you don't like almonds, start an almond boycott, or better yet, stop eating them - along with the lettuce, strawberries and meat (or meat substitutes) you eat.
why do people insist on living in a dessert?
8
I choose to live in a hot fudge sundae!
34
The more relevant question (for an article on agricultural use) is why does this country farm so much produce in the desert?
2
Because desserts are delicious. Deserts, on the other hand, have a sandy sort of texture and an unpleasant aftertaste.
1
Drought is a horrible thing that has hit California on a regular basis every few decades for thousands of years. We experience drought in a similar way in Texas. Texas recently reaped enough water from El Nino(I know that the n needs a tilde) to finally bring us out of drought. Larger and larger populations is not the answer. Almond trees have many benefit beside their great nuts. The answer is long term planning. Governor Brown experienced drought in his earlier term in the 70's and did nothing to plan for this reoccurring disaster. I am sure that Governor Brown is not the only one who failed to plan. Drought will visit both California and Texas in the future. Texas is implementing some long term plans to fight future drought. There are other states which experience drought but I don't know their particulars.
3
I lived in California in the 70's. I remember the interviews and articles where Jerry Brown would explain that there was nothing he could do - the farmers had legal rights. He put the century old agreements above the needs of an entire state.
This time, he has been trying to do the same thing - but now there is social media to let people know what is really happening, contradicting his arguments. So I think he is getting much more feedback - and perhaps worrying that pitchforks and mobs may become a real possibility if he keeps giving free water to the rich while charging struggling Californians more for water.
This time, he has been trying to do the same thing - but now there is social media to let people know what is really happening, contradicting his arguments. So I think he is getting much more feedback - and perhaps worrying that pitchforks and mobs may become a real possibility if he keeps giving free water to the rich while charging struggling Californians more for water.
8
Hate to break it to you, but Texas' recent weather has had nothing to do with the El Nino weather phenomenon. Current (as in, last month) measurements of Pacific Ocean temperatures have caused a prediction of a strong El Nino...which will run from fall 2015 to spring 2016.
Since it comes off the Pacific, its first effects are felt through increased rainfall in Southern California, then spreading to the south Central U.S., including Texas. So, the recent weather in Texas isn't really part of the El Nino system.
Since it comes off the Pacific, its first effects are felt through increased rainfall in Southern California, then spreading to the south Central U.S., including Texas. So, the recent weather in Texas isn't really part of the El Nino system.
3
A contract is a contract. That includes water rights.
Is it true that irrigation techniques used in Israel use a small fraction of the water use by US irrigation?
6
Yes, much of Israel's agricultural needs are served by a more efficient use of their very limited water. However, the scale of their problem is much smaller than than of California.
1
I think the thrust of your comment is very valid: relatively cheap water for California farmers has resulted in a disincentive for them to invest in water-saving technologies.
3
There is some hope that a developing El Nino in the eastern equatorial Pacific may result in a 2015-16 wet season for California that may significantly mitigated, if not break, its biblical drought. See http://www.weatherwest.com/archives/3172. But as Mr. Swain, a PhD candidate in the Department of Environmental Earth System Science at Stanford University, points out in the blog cited, supra, that is far from certain. The promise of a 2014-14 El Nino simply failed to develop. And El Ninos don't always result in increased wet season precipitation for California. Yet, the signs are as promising as one could hope for that the 2015-16 El Nino will at least significantly relieve California's drought.
But, given the caveats and qualifications that Mr. Swain reports, no reasonably prudent official of California's government can count on the 2015-16 El Nino saving California from another year of devastating drought.
And, if this El Nino does break California's drought, it might do so by causing serious, if not devastating, flooding. id.
But, given the caveats and qualifications that Mr. Swain reports, no reasonably prudent official of California's government can count on the 2015-16 El Nino saving California from another year of devastating drought.
And, if this El Nino does break California's drought, it might do so by causing serious, if not devastating, flooding. id.
5
Probably just one year of a wet El Nino will not relieve the problems from California's multi-year drought :-( The comments is correct that a wet El Nino with flooding does not necessarily result in efficient capture of the resulting rainfall.
Dear Mr. Hobart: Yes, California needs a typically cool wet season with a large snow pack in its mountains that is about 120% above average to break its drought, and that event is unlikely even with a wet El Nino. California has worked hydrologically because its mountain's accumulated snow pack during its winter wet season, which melted slowly over the summer to provide California with a large and indispensable share of its water. Rain and flooding don't supply the reserves of water, as snow, which are needed and which are slowly dispensed over the summer. And El Nino's happen about every five to seven years, so seven years of drought punctuated by one year of El Nino rains that rush mostly to the oceans isn't a solution for California's dryness. But the drought stricken can be choosers, so if rain and flooding is all that California can get, I think that most Californians will, at this point, take it.
Also, Mr. Swain, supra, was a junior partner on a paper, which posits that the dryness of California's wet season is another result of climate change. While that result is still controversial, if it is correct or if California is entering a long period of secular dryness for other reasons—and in the remote past, California has experienced decade-long and hundred-year droughts--California won't be destroyed, for it can and will adapt, but it will be diminished and greatly so, because water is indispensable and has no substitutes.
Also, Mr. Swain, supra, was a junior partner on a paper, which posits that the dryness of California's wet season is another result of climate change. While that result is still controversial, if it is correct or if California is entering a long period of secular dryness for other reasons—and in the remote past, California has experienced decade-long and hundred-year droughts--California won't be destroyed, for it can and will adapt, but it will be diminished and greatly so, because water is indispensable and has no substitutes.
This is great news. The next step is to stop them from digging thousand-foot deep wells and sucking the water out of the ground. It has to stop.
51
Why aren't we hearing about curtailing fracking? That wastes billions of gallons of clean water. We don't get anything for that.
64
I'm not a fracking supporter, but it does not use "billions" of gallons of water in California, where it is much more limited than in, say, North Dakota. Fracking uses only a small fraction of the water farms use.
Because the rich can afford to buy all the water they want and starve out the rest of us.
The time for California to be the produce/nut market for the country is over.
15
Let's see how this plays out. Agriculture can use water MUCH more efficiently than it has to date because it has had no financial or legal incentive to do so. It now has that incentive. The recent advances in avocado production (more avocados using less water) illustrate the progress that can be made in this regard. The phrase "necessity is the mother of invention" didn't become part of our daily lexicon for no good reason......
27
It may be a good thing. When I was a child berries, fruits and vegetables where much smaller in size. As an adult I noticed how grossly over sized strawberries, blueberries and raspberries, grapes,cucumbers, zucchinis tomatoes etc etc etc had become and also less tastier.
A farmer told me that was because they were blown up with water. He advised to look for the more compact vegetable and fruit - both for taste and higher nutritional value.
Maybe the forced reduction in water will give us less overblown style in food and more in nutrition.
A farmer told me that was because they were blown up with water. He advised to look for the more compact vegetable and fruit - both for taste and higher nutritional value.
Maybe the forced reduction in water will give us less overblown style in food and more in nutrition.
15
Interesting. Here in the Northeast one of the first things I noticed was the smaller, more flavorful strawberries. Nothing like the large, tasteless things I'd gotten used to in California.
14
This will drive up the cost of fruit and vegetables.
Why haven't we installed and interstate pipeline that pumps water from the states that are flooding like Texas and Louisiana and pipes it to California.
We spent trillions in Afghanistan building their irrigation system supporting the world's leading producer of heroin poppies, we built roads and airports for them that have helped Afghanistan net more than six trillion dollars street value in heroin sales.
But there is no money to build and interstate pipeline system so that California can continue to produce food.
This is really dumb.
Why haven't we installed and interstate pipeline that pumps water from the states that are flooding like Texas and Louisiana and pipes it to California.
We spent trillions in Afghanistan building their irrigation system supporting the world's leading producer of heroin poppies, we built roads and airports for them that have helped Afghanistan net more than six trillion dollars street value in heroin sales.
But there is no money to build and interstate pipeline system so that California can continue to produce food.
This is really dumb.
11
Please learn some history. California is built on water piped in and diverted from other places. There's only so much of that you can do and most other states would like to keep their water. States like Colorado are having their own water shortages.
19
Enabling people to grow more crops in the desert is not the answer.
16
The Colorado River's water is used to support people and agriculture in five states and Mexico, but the water level has been steadily declining with no indication of any short or long term reversal in that trend. Two weeks ago, farmers in central Arizona were informed that they will be the first Colorado river users to be required to cease using the River's water. They weren't happy, but acknowledge it was expected and is part of a multi-state compact agreement.
1
I note that there are some comments here from outside California, and many lead me to think people outside California are forming opinions without knowing the facts of the water situation in California.
As the article points out, the bulk of California's water use goes toward agriculture. The UCLA Institute of Environmental and Sustainability Studies has published a study on the state's water use (available if you google it) and as the article pointed out, farm use accounts for roughly 80% of the state's water use. In contrast, urban indoor use is about 8%, while outdoor urban use (pools, lawns, etc.) account for about 8%.
There is a huge amount of difference among the water needs for various crops. Some California crops like almonds, pistachios, and alfalfa are especially thirsty. For example, alfalfa is about twice as thirsty as rice, about 5 times as thirsty as grain crops, and about 7 times as thirsty as tomatoes, and about 26 times as thirsty as onions.
So a lot of California's water use is actually concentrated not merely in agriculture, in some very specific sub-sectors of agriculture. These are profitable sub-sectors to be sure, but when water is a limited resource the state has to consider how much the alfalfa or almond cultivation's interests superseded the interests of other water-users.
As the article points out, the bulk of California's water use goes toward agriculture. The UCLA Institute of Environmental and Sustainability Studies has published a study on the state's water use (available if you google it) and as the article pointed out, farm use accounts for roughly 80% of the state's water use. In contrast, urban indoor use is about 8%, while outdoor urban use (pools, lawns, etc.) account for about 8%.
There is a huge amount of difference among the water needs for various crops. Some California crops like almonds, pistachios, and alfalfa are especially thirsty. For example, alfalfa is about twice as thirsty as rice, about 5 times as thirsty as grain crops, and about 7 times as thirsty as tomatoes, and about 26 times as thirsty as onions.
So a lot of California's water use is actually concentrated not merely in agriculture, in some very specific sub-sectors of agriculture. These are profitable sub-sectors to be sure, but when water is a limited resource the state has to consider how much the alfalfa or almond cultivation's interests superseded the interests of other water-users.
15
Yes, an alfalfa goes to feeding livestock. In other words: MEAT.
11
California's alfalfa goes to China.
24
Yes, I noticed the same thing about out of state people and their opinions. Even the picture above the article is of Thermal which is actually on Colorado River water. However, almonds may be considered exotic and in some ways are but alfalfa is a very basic crop and in a great variety of finished products. Like oil, or fuel, if the price of alfalfa goes up, this price rise will be felt across a broad spectrum of finished products certainly including beef and dairy products.
1
What really needs to happen is that we stop considering the ability to draw water from a natural source a "right". It is and should be considered a privilege, not a right. It should be a privilege one pays for.
43
Clean water to sustain life is an unalienable right to every living creature including humans. It is not a "right" for someone to use/despoil water so they can profit as is being done in California. Much of the water being used in California agriculture is being exported overseas in such water intensive crops as almonds and alfalfa; for this farming it most certainly is a prviledge.
7
There are no "water rights" in the contractual sense associated with what you rightfully call an inalienable right. All the "water rights" are grants to agricultural or corporate interests for use in their business. But all of our legal language regarding the usage of water for these businesses talks about "water rights". Those historical and contractual "water rights" are what I was referring to.
1
How about a pipeline for water that comes to California from areas in the East that seem to be flooding every month. We do it for oil. Why not water? I'm not trying to flip, but the central valley of California does provide a great amount of food. I think agribusiness could help cover the costs.
10
I can see it now: due to global warming brought on by increased fossil fuel production, CA elects to sue the state of Texas because its inactions have resulted in shifting weather patterns, causing the Lone Star state to be inundated with rain that would normally fall on CA. (CA will accept water in lieu of payment.)
4
There is one huge barrier to doing that. It is the Rocky Mountains. A quick look at the Americal Petrolium Institutes website shows that there are only two pipelines that cross the Rockies. Neither is for oil, but for refined products instead. One of the pipelines comes from Texas and crosses through New Mexico and Arizona into California. The other takes the northern route from Wyoming into Washington State. I think the cost of pumping enough water from the eastern U.S. to supply the needs of California would be prohibitive.
12
The other barrier is politics. It would require massive government investment in new infrastructure. Can you ever see Congress approving government expenditure on infrastructure? A national holiday-prayer day for rain would get more support.
On the other hand, corporate investors in a pipeline from the east? Now, your talking. With the right kind of profit and tax incentives (introduced and approved by Congress, of course), it's quite conceivable they could punch a hole through the Rockies and lay a pipeline from the Great Lakes to California. The political sell to the electorate would be that it will create jobs. People will flock from hundreds of miles for the opportunity to dig a ditch to California if it pays more than the minimum wage.
The California Water Wars of nearly a century ago was dirty business that is still being played out today. But that was just a dress rehearsal for what is to come in the 21st Century. We haven't seen the half of it yet.
On the other hand, corporate investors in a pipeline from the east? Now, your talking. With the right kind of profit and tax incentives (introduced and approved by Congress, of course), it's quite conceivable they could punch a hole through the Rockies and lay a pipeline from the Great Lakes to California. The political sell to the electorate would be that it will create jobs. People will flock from hundreds of miles for the opportunity to dig a ditch to California if it pays more than the minimum wage.
The California Water Wars of nearly a century ago was dirty business that is still being played out today. But that was just a dress rehearsal for what is to come in the 21st Century. We haven't seen the half of it yet.
2
Being in California I will chime in. We are (most of us) conserving and also not watering lawns. Some are slow to jump on the band wagon; they tend to be our wealthier residents. However, we live in the wine country and within view of our house, they are at this moment planting 300+ acres of grapes. Drilling a reputed 1,200' well. That is an enormous amount of water a day, especially while the plants are young. And this is not the only vineyard being planted.
It hurts to think that farmers are being forced to cut back but a luxury crop has no hurdles to jump.
I understand the source of the water is different but we are talking aquifers being depleted and it appears to be okay if you have the money.
Don't get me started on the golf courses.
It hurts to think that farmers are being forced to cut back but a luxury crop has no hurdles to jump.
I understand the source of the water is different but we are talking aquifers being depleted and it appears to be okay if you have the money.
Don't get me started on the golf courses.
63
In elementary school in San Diego in the late 1950s, we were admonished and told to "Nip the Drip." Clearly, in spite of conservation efforts on the part of many, the situation has become too great for the average person to have much on an effect. Farmers must convert to drip irrigation. Swimming pools must remain dry and golf courses should be a thing of the past. In this age, no one wants to give up a lavish lifestyle along with bubble baths in gigantic whirlpool tubs. Consideration for others no longer exists. However, to this day the sound of a dripping faucet or water from an unknown source drives me crazy. I am proud that I am so aware of how precious water is whether I live in a state with tons of water or not.
3
I'd just read recently that grapes don't need as much water as other crops.
That "luxury crop" brings a lot of money into California.
That "luxury crop" brings a lot of money into California.
1
It's a lie. Grapes CAN grow with very little water as is done in Eurpoe and formerly in Ca but this is no longer done in Ca because the yields are too low. Follow the money. The biggest liars in agriculture are the wine producers. The water footprint of wine is 1000 to 1, 1000 glasses of water for one glass of wine.
2
Some still unresolved issues:
Why only rights dating back to 1903? Who does that protect (and why)?
California needs to either ban the growing of certain crops until the drought (hopefully) subsides or those growing rice, almonds, etc. must pay a much higher price per gallon than anyone else (including other farmers).
No corporation/business should be allowed to bottle California water and sell it out of state, or sell the water directly out of state. Nestle needs a really good swift kick in the bottom-line behind from California consumers. Boycotts work.
No farmer or water rights holder should be allowed to sell/resell California water out of state.
As someone who has lived on water meters for about the last 5 years, I remain appalled that most of Sacramento (and the state) remains unmetered and people just pay a monthly fee (for whatever amount of water they use). Even if homeowners use less than 10% of the state's water supply, the pain should be felt evenly among all - homeowners, farmers, businesses, construction firms, swimming pools, golf courses, hair salons, government offices, etc.
Everyone has to participate in saving water and the only way to make that happen is a serious and severe attack on the pocketbook. Money always talks.
Why only rights dating back to 1903? Who does that protect (and why)?
California needs to either ban the growing of certain crops until the drought (hopefully) subsides or those growing rice, almonds, etc. must pay a much higher price per gallon than anyone else (including other farmers).
No corporation/business should be allowed to bottle California water and sell it out of state, or sell the water directly out of state. Nestle needs a really good swift kick in the bottom-line behind from California consumers. Boycotts work.
No farmer or water rights holder should be allowed to sell/resell California water out of state.
As someone who has lived on water meters for about the last 5 years, I remain appalled that most of Sacramento (and the state) remains unmetered and people just pay a monthly fee (for whatever amount of water they use). Even if homeowners use less than 10% of the state's water supply, the pain should be felt evenly among all - homeowners, farmers, businesses, construction firms, swimming pools, golf courses, hair salons, government offices, etc.
Everyone has to participate in saving water and the only way to make that happen is a serious and severe attack on the pocketbook. Money always talks.
25
"California needs to either ban the growing of certain crops until the drought (hopefully) subsides or those growing rice, almonds, etc. must pay a much higher price per gallon than anyone else (including other farmers)."
No that's too much government interference which typically causes more problems. Let the market sort things out. Give each farm x amount of water per acre. Some farmers might keep five acres of almond trees while another farmer can decide to have 50 acres of another crop.
No that's too much government interference which typically causes more problems. Let the market sort things out. Give each farm x amount of water per acre. Some farmers might keep five acres of almond trees while another farmer can decide to have 50 acres of another crop.
3
I'd suggest banning water bottling and fracking. I'm surprised that metering isn't common. Our water is metered and its plentiful here.
1
It may be time to examine Nestle Corporation's use of water from the San Bernardino National Forest brought to the public's attention with news of its permit which expired 28 years ago.
That permit was issued in the early 1930s to the original permit holder and passed to successive companies. If the information is correct, that permit is valid in perpetuity. Also, the permit discussed in the news is for the use of pipelines from the water source to its collection - some 4+ miles away. The fee paid for use of the pipeline is a little more than $600.00 annually.
Considering this information, the extreme drought in California, the use of thousands of gallons of water for a pittance, and the healthy returns earned by Nestle, there is more than good reason to re-examine these water rights, question the rates paid, and if those rights should be held in perpetuity.
That permit was issued in the early 1930s to the original permit holder and passed to successive companies. If the information is correct, that permit is valid in perpetuity. Also, the permit discussed in the news is for the use of pipelines from the water source to its collection - some 4+ miles away. The fee paid for use of the pipeline is a little more than $600.00 annually.
Considering this information, the extreme drought in California, the use of thousands of gallons of water for a pittance, and the healthy returns earned by Nestle, there is more than good reason to re-examine these water rights, question the rates paid, and if those rights should be held in perpetuity.
163
Why only back to 1903? These "farmers" are mostly rich mega-corporations - the largest being foreign based and growing for export. They get their water so cheaply or for free that they sometimes sell it to "monetize" it. So, while I'm glad to see that something is being done, it isn't nearly enough. Right now, the rich "farmers" are privatizing their gains while they socialize their loss through fees and restrictions on water. This is just another example of the 1/10 of 1% getting richer while the rest of us struggle to survive.
88
And if the TransPacific Partnership is eventually passed, trans-national corporations would force taxpayers to pay for their "loss of expected profits" when California passes laws regulating water use.
1
Water water everywhere... isn't it time for California to build some desalinization plants?? Then you could spread out the supersalinated by- product which will then evaporate, leaving you with salt which you can then either sell or spread out on your winter streets when it snows (in the north, of course).
Talk to the Israelis; they know how to do this. Otherwise you're left with only two alternatives: 1. internecine warfare between different interest groups and 2. simply hope for more rain... so how's that working out so far?
Talk to the Israelis; they know how to do this. Otherwise you're left with only two alternatives: 1. internecine warfare between different interest groups and 2. simply hope for more rain... so how's that working out so far?
24
As a Californian, I do not want to see desal plants lining up our coast and killing the marine environment. California does not have the water to be the produce basket of the country.
7
The Israelies do not use water from desalinization plants for agriculture. It is not economically fesible to do that. And the desalinization plants do not produce enough water for that purpose anyway. The magnitude of the water problem in California cannot be solved by desalinization.
12
I assume you do not actually know very much about California. Among the other things, California does not snow "in the north." It snows in the mountains, north or south.
California is not a desert. The climate is arid Mediterranean. Droughts are periodic, so desalinization plants would only be needed periodically. Last I checked, building such a plant only to run it for two to three years then putting it in mothball for 10 years is not economically sensible.
California's water issues can be resolved through conservation. The problem is, like with most other political issues, special interest groups lobby the government so they will not have to shoulder the burden. The rest is basically explained in this article.
I don't understand why people outside California feel compelled to share their opinion on this issue when (1) it does not affect them and (2) they obviously know little or nothing about the issue.
California is not a desert. The climate is arid Mediterranean. Droughts are periodic, so desalinization plants would only be needed periodically. Last I checked, building such a plant only to run it for two to three years then putting it in mothball for 10 years is not economically sensible.
California's water issues can be resolved through conservation. The problem is, like with most other political issues, special interest groups lobby the government so they will not have to shoulder the burden. The rest is basically explained in this article.
I don't understand why people outside California feel compelled to share their opinion on this issue when (1) it does not affect them and (2) they obviously know little or nothing about the issue.
9
Are they still allowing golf courses and homeowners to water the grass? Are all car-washes closed? Swimming pools allowed to be filled? What are the priorities?
37
Maybe you didn't read the article that 80% of water use is for agriculture. California urban consumers already consume one of the lowest water per capita of any state in the country. We just can't grow crops and produce for the rest of the country with the limited water -- that is just reality. Maybe we need to figure out how to grow more where there is water in the country, or get water into California from elsewhere.
10
You are absolutely right! Why is land being grated for thousands of new track homes in southern California? Shouldn't these projects be placed on hold or cancelled?
6
Maybe they should be all of the above plus doing away with agriculture water hungry crops and aquifer drillers who just drill deeper and deeper. Also, stop subsidizing water rights in perpetuaity for the corporate class.
4
This will inevitably lead to a shortage of fresh produce as well as reduced supplies of fruits and vegetables used by producers of prepared food and restaurants. Get ready for prices to soar at your favorite local store. And, if you choose to go your local farmers market (almost always a good place to shop for local fresh food) just remember that the vendors will be able to ask higher prices because of the increased prices at the retailers who get supplies sourced from California. Don't expect any farmer or producers to help out; they will be trying to save their businesses and to feed their families.
13
Higher prices, yes. It will not lead to shortages, except maybe temporarily, until vendors find prices high enough to clear the market.
1
How about reviving the Victory Garden concept from WWII? We can all swap produce with our friends and neighbors, and freeze and can, and the "producers" can just cram their high prices.
6
We will pay to stop climate change, or we will pay because of the effects of climate change. There is no other way.
9
Think this is a big problem now? Wait another 50 years until the great mid-western aquifer dries up! Things will really get interesting. In the meantime, California- you decided to grow water guzzling crops like nuts, hay and alfalfa for a quick buck, so shame on you for not rotating your crops and planning for contingency situations.. like a DROUGHT!
64
Only one feasible solution: desalination plants up and down the coast, powered by solar farms set up in the abandoned farmlands. The tech exists, the only issue is energy and solar is ready to step up. Too bad that these commentators seem to believe in some dystopian collective punishment for the future, as if higher food prices will solve any problem at all other than impoverish more people.
10
Yeah just destroy the coastline, that's the only feasible solution. What a ridiculous suggestion; if water becomes available from desal plants it WILL be used to grow crops, which need sunlight as well, so setting up solar panels above them wouldn't quite work out. Too bad your comment seems to indicate a belief that there is 'only one feasible solution' to this complex set of problems...
6
How would desal plants destroy the coast line? Do you mean as an eye sore? Arab counties are running out of water much for the same reasons as California. What should they do?
You are talking about a lot of time and money to do this (cost of the plants and the distribution network). Expect to pay much higher prices for any products depending on this. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just warning to expect the consequences.
1
This decision does not appear to have any affect on those who choose to drill into the aquifer for their water. Therefore, I see this as basically moving the problem from one water source to another until there is potentially little water left for anyone.
52
A side effect of this drought may be greater state regulation of groundwater (drilling water wells), something about which the state has failed to pay enough attention.
1
>
All well and good, but until CA gets sustained rains nothing is going to solve its problem, and the rainy season has come and gone. This calamity is just getting underway.
"Water is the first principle of everything."
Thales
All well and good, but until CA gets sustained rains nothing is going to solve its problem, and the rainy season has come and gone. This calamity is just getting underway.
"Water is the first principle of everything."
Thales
40
An El Nino has formed again off the coast of the US, Canada and Mexico and is much larger (and water temps much higher) than the El Nino that was detected last year. El Nino, in the past, has triggered heavy rainfall for California. However it is snowfall and the resulting snowmelt in the Sierras that feeds the reservoirs that in turn irrigate the vast Central Valley farms and some non agricultural uses of water. This past rainy season brought very little snowpack to the Sierras due to the warmer winter temps.
15
Charging farmers for water will solve the problem.
About time. Spinning our wheels on how much we water a lawn or how long we take a shower is nice, but total residential use is <8%.
Of course, this still does nothing with groundwater pumping. The central valley is actually sinking into the ground as the groundwater is pumped dry. Those aquifers cant be refilled as they've collapsed. Its not like a sponge, its like a water balloon with a brick on it and a leak.
Growing high water use crops should have been curtailed years ago to preserve ground water. This is only a little and many years late.
Ehhh...and 'cooler and wetter weather'? Here in the central valley it's been under 95 daytime once in the last few weeks and we had .06" of rainfall a few days ago. It was a cooler than usual month of May, and we did have a few days where it just tinkled a little and one where it poured but this is a few drips in a four year drought following the warmest and driest year on record. Not much of an excuse for deferring this for so long.
Of course, this still does nothing with groundwater pumping. The central valley is actually sinking into the ground as the groundwater is pumped dry. Those aquifers cant be refilled as they've collapsed. Its not like a sponge, its like a water balloon with a brick on it and a leak.
Growing high water use crops should have been curtailed years ago to preserve ground water. This is only a little and many years late.
Ehhh...and 'cooler and wetter weather'? Here in the central valley it's been under 95 daytime once in the last few weeks and we had .06" of rainfall a few days ago. It was a cooler than usual month of May, and we did have a few days where it just tinkled a little and one where it poured but this is a few drips in a four year drought following the warmest and driest year on record. Not much of an excuse for deferring this for so long.
74
And when, Governor, will you ask your agribusiness paymasters to stop destroying the water table?
I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath.
I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath.
80
I wouldn't hold your breath unless you can hold it for 25 years, which is when well drilling will be fully regulated and controlled by the state.
3
Necessity breeds innovation and progress. It is disruptive and hard. Coming from a California farm family, I know. Crop choices and eating habits must now conform to a new reality. It's called ethical consumption, but it wouldn't happen if it weren't imperative.
108
This hits the nail on the head perfectly; it's going to be incredibly difficult to discuss eating habits, but it has to happen eventually.
If we are truly free in this nation, the free market should rule prices, and all government price supports and manipulation should be banned.
1
You should concentrate on improving the drought in Green Valley. Teach your area about ethical consumption.
But does this prohibit the pumping of underground aquifers? Doesn't seem too, and that's a critical problem.
95
You are so right. It is the next issue to be confronted. In some areas the land is sinking from draining the groundwater.
23
The problem for the Central Valley is that water is diverted from Sierra Nevada mountains before the water reaches the valley floor where it can recharge the aquifer. Water is diverted out of the watershed into the SF Bay Area and LA that could go to help recharge the groundwater. There aren't too many wells in the LA basin or the SF Bay Area so they import water that could benefit both the environment and farms of CA if it stayed in it's hydrological region. I bet the state will try to "retire" some of land on the west side of the Central Valley that historically wasn't farmable. Maybe they'll put in solar farms out there.
10
It's about time these desert water moochers finally got a splash of reality.
Let them farm where it rains once and a while.
Let them farm where it rains once and a while.
78
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way thorough our political and cultural life. Nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”
―Isaac Asimov
―Isaac Asimov
3
You're in NJ, who do you think we're mooching water from? Do you know anything about the complex hydrological system that's been built over generations? Do you know anything about where the crops are grown, or what a desert is? With the exception of the Imperial Valley, there crops are mostly grown in regions that are semi-arid or used to be seasonal marshes. You have no clue.
5
Californian -- Kudos - you are completely correct. The ignorant fools on the east coast do not understand, or readily forget, the primary source of the nuts, fruits and vegetables they readily eat without reflection of the source.
Earth Scientist
California
Earth Scientist
California
2
In the time it took you to read this article, the price of fruits and vegetables went up 10%.
4
And maybe it should.
6
We have the cheapest food prices in the entire world, drought or no drought, so this is just not true.
2
That's not true tyrone; sheesh.