[NPC82]

What seems like missed opportunity is mainly just south central valley agricultural propaganda. Apologies if I unload too much information here.

"Additional surface water storage, while having some economic benefit, is not as valuable as expanding key conveyance and recharge facilities. Aqueducts, canals, and interties that allow users to buy and sell water, especially between the agricultural and urban sectors, are the most valuable. " [1]

and

"As Delta exports are restricted, scarcity increases for agricultural users south of the Delta. Some of these costs would be offset by revenues from sales of water by senior water-rights holders to urban areas and higher-valued agriculture." [1]

ie: Water limitations at the delta effect how many almonds or pistachios we can produce and sell (or rather, the agricultural monopolies).

As I've highlighted in another comment, locations for another surface-level reservoir are scarce, and offer diminishing returns at best. "No reservoir can reliably deliver more than the reservoir’s average annual inflow (minus evaporation)[...]" Most easy, cheap, and effective reservoir locations in California already have reservoirs." [2]

Our best tools are to: conserve water, protect our ground water aquifers (that actually make up the majority of our water supply), and hope we can hold/reverse climate change enough to keep temperatures low enough to generate snow pack every year in the mountains.

[1] https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2014v9iss2art4 [2]https://californiawaterblog.com/2011/09/13/water-storage-in-...

[safety1st]

Aren't the issues of monopoly and water usage separate? More water would equal more economic activity which is good. But all the profits would accrue to one place because there's a monopoly, which is bad.

It seems like California is mismanaging on two fronts, one it should build more water storage to stimulate more economic growth, two it should break its monopolies so the benefits of that growth are more widely spread.