[Rally]

[quote author=Kathy link=topic=12510.msg124522#msg124522 date=1439667381]
[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=12510.msg124409#msg124409 date=1439586767]
Better pricing would greatly reduce some of the wasteful uses of water (e.g., growing relatively low-value, water-intensive crops such as alfalfa and rice), and wouldn't significantly cut into high-value uses.

And what would you deem high-value usage? Alfalfa is a high-protein legume utilized by cattle that humans, in turn, utilize as food (beef and milk). Rice is one of the most important food staples in the world. What uses would you advocate to replace alfalfa and rice production? Granted, both crops use a lot of water (although there is interest in midsummer deficit irrigation methods for alfalfa with the trade-off of a lower yield), but I wouldn't classify either crop as low-value or their cultivation as wasteful.
[/quote]

The logical way to figuring this out would be to allow each individual farmer to make the appropriate determination of which crop brings them the most high value once they take into account the price of their land, the quality of their soil, the price of the water they need to irrigate it, their risk tolerance, and of course, the yield and sale price of their crop when selling it.  It may turn out that once the price of water is taken into account that farmers in California might decide that this is not the best place to grow rice.  With a decline in supply, the price of rice might go up, prompting farmers in areas of the country (or the world) who don't have a water shortage to plant more of it.  Or maybe it will prompt some company to develop a strain of rice that is more drought resistant (see, for example: http://www.wsj.com/articles/drought-resi...7084130).  Or maybe Californian farmers will determine that the cost of water is still low enough that growing rice makes sense because of the high yields and market price they get.

I am hardly an unfettered market kind of guy, but markets generally work pretty well for commodities, including water.  I'll be the first to acknowledge socalstanfan's points about the importance of federal and state investments in water.  Those were necessary, and continue to be necessary.  As I said, I'm not an unfettered markets kind of guy.  But as for determining the optimal allocation and use of water, that can be determined pretty well using market pricing.

For all its complexity, this is a tractable problem.  Some combination of conservation, improved allocation, and new sources should be able to support California's population, even if the current drought continues.  Water can be reused; even sewage water can be made more pure than that coming out of a mountain spring; treating and reusing bath and dish water, collecting rainwater is even easier.  Desalination is an option (albeit an energy intensive one).

If Israel, built on a desert can adequately supply water to its citizens, then California can too.

BC
[/quote]

Farmers are making those crop decisions now and have been from the beginning.  Most farmers still have some water, as a trip along 5 or 101 shows.  Some fields are fallow, some crops are being replaced, many orchards are being watered at the expense of annual crops.  In Southern California, many citrus and grape farmers decided years ago to move from oranges and grapes to a more profitable crop.  The fact that that crop happened to be houses only exacerbated the problem.

[Rally]

[quote author=Kathy link=topic=12510.msg124522#msg124522 date=1439667381]
[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=12510.msg124409#msg124409 date=1439586767]
Better pricing would greatly reduce some of the wasteful uses of water (e.g., growing relatively low-value, water-intensive crops such as alfalfa and rice), and wouldn't significantly cut into high-value uses.

And what would you deem high-value usage? Alfalfa is a high-protein legume utilized by cattle that humans, in turn, utilize as food (beef and milk). Rice is one of the most important food staples in the world. What uses would you advocate to replace alfalfa and rice production? Granted, both crops use a lot of water (although there is interest in midsummer deficit irrigation methods for alfalfa with the trade-off of a lower yield), but I wouldn't classify either crop as low-value or their cultivation as wasteful.
[/quote]

The logical way to figuring this out would be to allow each individual farmer to make the appropriate determination of which crop brings them the most high value once they take into account the price of their land, the quality of their soil, the price of the water they need to irrigate it, their risk tolerance, and of course, the yield and sale price of their crop when selling it.  It may turn out that once the price of water is taken into account that farmers in California might decide that this is not the best place to grow rice.  With a decline in supply, the price of rice might go up, prompting farmers in areas of the country (or the world) who don't have a water shortage to plant more of it.  Or maybe it will prompt some company to develop a strain of rice that is more drought resistant (see, for example: http://www.wsj.com/articles/drought-resi...7084130).  Or maybe Californian farmers will determine that the cost of water is still low enough that growing rice makes sense because of the high yields and market price they get.

I am hardly an unfettered market kind of guy, but markets generally work pretty well for commodities, including water.  I'll be the first to acknowledge socalstanfan's points about the importance of federal and state investments in water.  Those were necessary, and continue to be necessary.  As I said, I'm not an unfettered markets kind of guy.  But as for determining the optimal allocation and use of water, that can be determined pretty well using market pricing.

For all its complexity, this is a tractable problem.  Some combination of conservation, improved allocation, and new sources should be able to support California's population, even if the current drought continues.  Water can be reused; even sewage water can be made more pure than that coming out of a mountain spring; treating and reusing bath and dish water, collecting rainwater is even easier.  Desalination is an option (albeit an energy intensive one).

If Israel, built on a desert can adequately supply water to its citizens, then California can too.

BC
[/quote]

Farmers are making those crop decisions now and have been from the beginning.  Most farmers still have some water, as a trip along 5 or 101 shows.  Some fields are fallow, some crops are being replaced, many orchards are being watered at the expense of annual crops.  In Southern California, many citrus and grape farmers decided years ago to move from oranges and grapes to a more profitable crop.  The fact that that crop happened to be houses only exacerbated the problem.