[socalstanfan1]

I find myself in agreement with BC (and others on this thread): the market certainly has an important role to play in determining the best allocation of water.  My main point in the earlier post  was simply to point out that, before we jump to a simplistic bashing about the incompetence of government, we should at least acknowledge the role that government has played in making the California we live in possible, largely through investment in various irrigation, water movement, and storage.  Undoubtedly, the bureaucracies that have developed over the past 150 years or so to deal with water in the Western U.S. have a tendency to inefficiency and could use a lot of streamlining and reducing. The fact that the bureaucracies exist at all levels of government (Federal, State, and County/Municipal) simply makes the bureaucratic web more complex. 

But water will always be a hot political issue in California, simply because it really is in short supply in the most populous parts of the state (even in non-drought years), and that population can only be sustained through large-scale movement of water.  Add in the demands of farmers (who play such a crucial role in the economy), and a cultural milieu in which some groups prioritize environmental issues and others swimming pools and green lawns, then water will inevitably remain a hot political issue, even with the introduction of greater market reforms.  (I also assume that if we all had to pay the true cost of water, factoring in the cost of creating and maintaining the water systems that crisscross the state, we might find far more people moving out of the state than moving in.)

[socalstanfan1]

I find myself in agreement with BC (and others on this thread): the market certainly has an important role to play in determining the best allocation of water.  My main point in the earlier post  was simply to point out that, before we jump to a simplistic bashing about the incompetence of government, we should at least acknowledge the role that government has played in making the California we live in possible, largely through investment in various irrigation, water movement, and storage.  Undoubtedly, the bureaucracies that have developed over the past 150 years or so to deal with water in the Western U.S. have a tendency to inefficiency and could use a lot of streamlining and reducing. The fact that the bureaucracies exist at all levels of government (Federal, State, and County/Municipal) simply makes the bureaucratic web more complex. 

But water will always be a hot political issue in California, simply because it really is in short supply in the most populous parts of the state (even in non-drought years), and that population can only be sustained through large-scale movement of water.  Add in the demands of farmers (who play such a crucial role in the economy), and a cultural milieu in which some groups prioritize environmental issues and others swimming pools and green lawns, then water will inevitably remain a hot political issue, even with the introduction of greater market reforms.  (I also assume that if we all had to pay the true cost of water, factoring in the cost of creating and maintaining the water systems that crisscross the state, we might find far more people moving out of the state than moving in.)