[me2i81]

People have been growing food in dry valleys with rivers that bring water down from the mountains since the dawn of civilization. California is no exception. Calling it "unsustainable" in the context of agriculture is a bit simplistic. When less snow falls in the mountains, water deliveries to agriculture gets reduced, and some acreage goes fallow. "Market rate" sounds easy but is a bit of a red herring in this context. If you're a farmer contracted to get a certain share of a water system (as farmers are, in byzantine agreements that were set up decades ago and could probably only be unwound via acts of U.S. Congress and probably years of litigation) you take what you get, and then you have to buy more at market rate. If you grow nut trees, that's what you do both because the crop can still be profitable and because it costs you tens of thousands/acre if the trees die. If you grow alfalfa, you might just wait until next year.

[rayiner]

Unlike people at the dawn of civilization, those farmers didn't build those dams on the Colorado River, the Army Corps of Engineers did. As to the water agreements, they were a stupid idea that never should have happened, like lots of other stupid ideas people have had over the years (e.g. unsustainable pension agreements for public workers). The common theme is that it's essential that people today have the power to undo the mistakes of their predecessors.

Will that result in a lot of litigation? Sure. But the state has a lot of leverage on its side to push for a better result.

[me2i81]

Yeah, we have a common government that sometimes builds things, which is maybe more efficient than farmers shooting at each other over who diverted the river. Water rights are considered property, and you can't just go take them without recompense. But really, what are you after? California is going to use the collected water it has allocated for agriculture for that purpose, and the only thing you're going to accomplish by increasing what farmers pay for water is change the water usage patterns, so you'll replace a lot of alfalfa and rice with more almonds, pistachios, and wine grapes. Is that good or bad? I don't know.

[rayiner]

Sometimes the government builds things in stupid places which encourages people to do stupid things, like try to farm in the desert. And yes, water rights are property rights, but the answer simply cannot be "now you're stuck spending 80% of your water on something that makes up 2% of GDP."

There has to be a way for California's current government to fix its old mistakes. The government could tax water per gallon, or impose steep property taxes on water rights. Both would solve the problem and side-step any Constitutional takings claims by farmers.

[me2i81]

The battles over water rights have been going on in the west for at least a century, so I'm not all that optimistic that you're going to radically change how it works. But I still don't see what you're hoping to accomplish with this talk of "farming in the desert" as folly. What would you possibly do with the 30+ million acre feet that currently goes to agriculture? More golf courses?

[rayiner]

Farming in the desert is folly because that water could be put to much better uses (e.g. allowing more growth in the cities). Farming only happens in California because farmers don't pay for the real cost of that water. We don't have to do anything with that land. We have plenty of land in the U.S. Water, not so much.

[Natsu]

> Farming in the desert is folly because that water could be put to much better uses (e.g. allowing more growth in the cities).

Do we really want more growth in the cities where water is scarce?

[astrocyte]

What's your point? Let them piss all the water down the drain until there's no more? There is land in the U.S that is more hospitable to growing crops. Get your head out of your behind and see that. Otherwise, let them suck all of the water out and then look at each other like idiots when its all gone. More and more this country seems like it needs to get a smack in the face and a swift kick in the arse to wake up. I never wonder how past civilizations went extinct when I read comment trains like this. Everybody wants to talk w/ their nose up in the air instead of addressing problems... Because that's too hard and problems have been around forever. Oh no, change that makes sense. Why do that?

Reply to post below me : So, there is no issue. Best of luck.

[me2i81]

The point is that water falls from the sky, in varying amounts, every year, and California has a huge amount of infrastructure to collect and use it, and a bunch of people who manage it. If agriculture and ranching stopped in California there would be nothing to do with 2/3s of that water (i.e. about twice annual domestic/commercial use), even in drought years, once the reservoirs and aquifers filled up again. It would end up in the ocean. If the western mega-drought that some people are talking about happens, then things would be different.

[nate_meurer]

The situation in California has almost no resemblance to your dry-valleys-fed-with-runoff lore. The southern San Joaquin Valley is forcibly irrigated using tens of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure to pipe water where is doesn't naturally go. Same for Imperial in the South, and every major urban center south of Fresno.

"Buy more at market rate" means nothing if there is no water that's actually deliverable. Now that reservoirs are running dry, that's exactly what's starting to happen.

[me2i81]

Sure, there is huge water infrastructure with dams, canals, pumps, etc., but the principle is the same: water that used to flow to the ocean gets diverted for other use. Is the allocation between ag and urban/commercial use the correct one? Hell if I know.

[jfoutz]

Acts of congress aren't enough. Some of those rights stem from treaties - second only to the constitution.

[astrocyte]

Ok, then there is no issue. Best of luck