Bless your little water-conserving heart, Barb. Like none of us S. Calif. residents didn't know any of this these last 30 years, while we have observed the systematic destruction of S. California agrigulture?? My gosh. Our tax dollars at think-tank work. This simply boggles the mind. Since they must have spent a pretty penny having this think tank figure out what we already know, do ya think they'll actually DO something about this so we don't continue to see what I see out my bedroom window:
{{gwi:521227}}

This sad vista looking east out my bedroom window is of an 80 acre, 3rd generation Valencia orange orchard that grows some of the most delicious oranges I've ever tasted. Perfect for orange juice, just delectable. This family that owns this orchard is one of the founding families of the city of San Marcos, California that founded the city in the 1870's. It breaks my heart that they have been forced out of business due to the cost of water. It makes me just sick to think all that tender loving care passed on from generation to generation is going to end up in a subdivision. Another little piece of historic California agriculture on the chopping block because the idiots in Sacremento can't figure this out, and the bureaucracies of the myriad of water districts have become behemoths, losing sight of their focus, which is to provide reasonably priced water to its clients.

Time someone up in Sacramento comes to their senses. Thanks again, Barb. Very timely article. Will be passing this on to the few commercial growers and nursery folk here in North County.

Patty S.

When I moved from Vista to Escondido 35 years ago, there was an orange grove across from my new home [our tract replaced another grove] Now, there is a bevy of rooftops across from me. Sigh. My son rigged up a way for me to transfer bathwater to an outdoor tank, which I buck-brigade out to some of my plants. CA's population has tripled in the last 35 years and is set to triple again in the next 25 years. It is deemed that all those folks need water more than I need my garden, so my water bills grow like Devil Grass on steroids [the increased costs are to "teach" me the value of water]. And the fact that the "cost" of delivering that water must also include trips to Paris, Las Vegas, and other fine places for conferences by water officials, is ignored by my city council members, who shed crocodile tears while voting to increase my water rates. If you go online you can see data about how rapidly we are "urbanizing" the Great Central Valley's irreplaceable agricultural lands. That increased population must be supported with urban infrastructure.

Gee ... sorry, for the rant .... probably preaching to the already converted ....sigh

Well, the 'idiots' in Sacramento for decades have been wanting to price water appropriately, which means that the water subsidized for decades will go away. But water subsidies and farm subsidies must keep going, so pricing scarce water properly is a gargantuan political task.

Likely when water is finally priced properly, this will redistribute human population as well. California does not have the natural resources to support 40M people, let alone 20M, as we are seeing now. You can only move water around for so long, as it takes a lot of energy to move and maintain the infrastructure, and we're running out of cheap energy.

Dan

I just spoke with my Mother in Northern Cal yesterday and she tells me all of the dams up there are full and they are going to start releasing water from some of them.

Dan, I completely agree with you about subsidies - they create an artifical marketplace and do not accurately reflect "what the market will bear". But, the issue is much more complex and fraught with politics than just the subsidies issues. It has been a long-standing battle between N. and S. Calfornia - N. California being where all the water is, and S. California being where the bulk of the state's population and revenue exists. We need to get this figured out. Yes, to some extent, the price of water may deter a few folks from moving to S. Calif. (frankly, there are a lot more effective financial deterrents already in place besides the cost of water), but it's never been that we've not had enough water - there's plenty to go around - it is how it has been allocated. I don't hold out any hopes that this issue will get resolved under the current administration.

Patty S.

stepping away from knee-jerk responsses to such sacred cows as "we are a nation of immigrants" is probably not going to happen. It is true that water resource allocation is complex and badly politicized, but population increases are the motor the drives that dynamic. I am one native Californian who will soon be driven out of my home state, and water prices are one of the reasons. So, kudos to those who control use through high costs ... it works!

...SNIP.... If current immigration and fertility trends continue, the U.S.A.'s population will double to over 560 million in about the next 60 years, and reach one billion by 2100. Each year 3 million people are added to the U.S. population.

Fertility rates have remained at about 2.1 children per woman (replacement level) since 1974, thus fertility is increasingly a non-factor in U.S. population growth.

Over 70% of the U.S.A's 3.2 million annual population growth in the 1990's resulted from mass immigration. Legal immigration accounted for over two-thirds of that 70%.

Over 92% of California's population growth in the 1990's resulted from mass immigration.

Here is a link that might be useful: Carrying Capacity Network

Patty, I would say the issue won't get resolved under any administration so long as the lege is structured that way, and so long as the initiative system stays as it is, with the contradictory laws therefrom. And with all the dairy continuing to exist in the SJV. And so on.

There are, simply, not enough resources in CA (and on the planet, for that matter) to support that many people in CA, at current consumption levels. CA is a microcosm of how we deal with problems.

[/ecologist hat]

Dan

People aren't thinking this out logically.

The water subsidies for agriculture have paid for themselves many time over. Without them the coast of agriculture in many parts of California would be cost prohibitive. Additionally, water for residential use in Southern California would be several times more than it is now.

I don't know what to say about the politicians other than voters get what they deserve. The water issues in California has, for many years, been more about who can demonstrate greater political power than common sense. The refusal to build desalination plants in Southern California is puzzling. The insistence that higher water rates and water meters for communities in parts of California which don't have problems with water shortages is somehow going to accomplish something is another.

You would think by now that there would have been some attempt to retain urban runoff into basins so it can recharge the ground water supply instead of flushing it out to see every time it rains.