I don't really get the purpose of this article other than to maybe rile some people up. It offers no analysis and only one idea, which is capturing more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin watershed. It claims lawmakers would have to "stand up to" environmental lobbyists, which seems to imply that the will of the voters themselves would be to vote for large-scale dam projects if it weren't for those pesky lobbyists. I don't think that's the case at all. The article doesn't mention that households use only 9% of California's water supply. Or that industry and govt. use another 15% or so combined. Or that 3/4 of California's water goes to agriculture, which contributes little to California's GDP (<2%). No, the fact is, we have plenty of water for people. A great deal of California's rice and grain crops are exported out of the country for very little money. If we wish to conserve water, the most sensible course, in my opinion, is to cut exports of rice and grain crops.
rgmerk|2 years ago
If you have a sensibly designed water market, this aspect of the water management problem goes away as rice doesn’t get planted when the water price is high enough. Farmers will complain mightily (and should be politely ignored or if that fails told exactly where they can stick their complaints).
jeffbee|2 years ago
edge17|2 years ago
Even so, agriculture creates a huge number of jobs in and adjacent to the agriculture industry. You might solve one problem, but you will have a new one too.
tourmalinetaco|2 years ago