I read that and was much encouraged. Yes, we have a serious problem, but despair will not serve us well.

While I totally agree with the gist of the article, the 80% figure for agricultural water use is wrong, and unfairly shifts the burden onto farmers. We all have to treat water like the precious resource that it is.

The article linked below sheds a lot of light on where water is actually being used:

Everything I thought I knew about water in California is wrong

But the article to which you linked actually says that the 80% figure "isn't exactly wrong" (my italics). Note in the pie chart , which appears reasonably accurate, that "urban use"--homeowners 'n' such--constitutes only 10%. Obviously, not all of that 10% is wastage; it's even stretching it, I'd say, to insist that half of that 10% is wasted. But, for the sake of discussion, let's indeed say that half of that 10% is wastage, giving us 5% of the total, and let's say that, by herculean efforts, urban users completely eliminate that wasted 5%. That is meaningless in the context of the drought. Yes, certainly, we all have to treat water like the precious resource it is; but requiring homeowners to make draconian and intrusive cuts to reasonable personal usage when those cuts are effectively meaningless in the wider picture is just making the private sector the whipping boy, a foolish and unjust game to play in this crisis.

I am all for agriculture. I live in a County where growing crops is still a major industry. And I think that "agriculture" also includes businesses like small nurseries -- which are definitely threatened. Tell me a nursery I love is threatened by failing wells . . . THAT hits me where it hurts. Beside that, I LIKE things like fresh corn, grown here -- and tomatoes, and strawberries, and broccoli ... etc, etc.

Nevertheless . . . It annoys me that the ever-increasing wine grape crops are WASTING the water they are pulling from groundwater basins, by using inefficient overhead watering. (Yes. They ARE!) And it annoys me that more almond orchards are STILL BEING PLANTED -- when most of that crop is shipped out of the U.S.

We shouldn't be growing cotton in CA. We shouldn't be growing rice!

We have cut our water usage by 30+% since 2013. (And we had already begun to cut in 2013, btw.) That being so, it galls me to see swimming pools being refilled, and lush green lawns that are watered daily. THAT BITES.

They don't water vinyards here in Italy,as far as I know.There just is not enough water available for that! same goes for olives... The grapevines and olive trees easily survive-and flourish- on the autumn and winter rainfall.Sad to say, I gather that you folks in California aren't getting even fall and winter rain,and though we went through several years of ever-worsening drought, these past two years have been kind and generous,for which I am most grateful.So I don't intend to sound judgemental or un-sympathizing , yet I must admit that I get the impression that many people in the USA (meaning both home gardeners and farmers with bigger projects) water excessively,when there is absolutely no need . And I totally agree with Jeri that climate-appropriate crops should be grown; rice in California definitely sounds to me like the old "raising penguins in the desert" thing...just my two cents. Drought is such a terrible thing. Water is life!

Over here some vinyards might need some supplemental watering depending on the year, the variety, the type of rootstock and the soil. But certainly they are not watered regularly and not via overhead watering. Table grapes are watered more than wine grapes. To produce the best wine the grapevine variety must be one suited for the local conditions, ideally native varieties of which there are only too many over here. Unfortunately the new methods of olive cultivation ( the so called dense linear planting) which target production volume rather than quality) require regular watering with adverse effects on water usage and, many believe, to the plants long term health.

Btw I have been on timed drip irrigation for years but I have never used a soil humidity sensor to either bypass or trigger a watering cycle. Has anybody used one of those? Are they reliable? How do you use them?

I toured a winery once where we were told that they water their grapes only in bad drought years, and then only twice a season in those drought years. According to the winegrower, if you don't irrigate you get a smaller, but more flavorful crop. In other words, the wine would be superior but it would cost more to buy. The big vineyards all water regularly. It is only the smaller boutique vineyards which may or may not choose to dry farm their grapes.

Bart, much of our wine growing region is considerably drier than that of Italy, so some irrigation can be necessary some years.

I have also been told that California is growing less cotton and rice than we used to because almonds have been planted in their place. The profit margin is much higher. I don't have any evidence to back this up, so it could be incorrect. I am all for agriculture. I respect farmers and grew up in what was at the time still a farming community back East. However, there is such a thing as the right crop in the right place. And I do not respect Big Ag.

Cass several years ago was looking into a soil humidity sensor. If anyone's in contact with her, she might have insight into them.

In eastern Washington, we grow wheat. No watering...just have to depend on winter snowfall and occasional spring rain. Do the farmers in CA water at night? If it doesn't hurt the crop, it reduces evaporation.

We have hot summers with very little rain, so lawns are not always the best option. We are fortunate that we have 'pasture grass' in our yard and it doesn't take much water. But Bluegrass is not a good fit for our area.

Gardeners in our area are trying to encourage native plantings and especially water zones. Whether there are drought conditions or not...why pay the water bill? Keep grass to a minimum near the house...then add in more shrubs and perennials. They can take less water and provide good coverage and food for wildlife :)

Oh, and thanks for the article! I just love this picture....

You see a vineyard regularly watering with overhead irrigation, you know their wine is cheap juice sold by the ton.

He he he I think the vineyards I see by 101 are owned by a wealthy local family. I don't think they care (former state assembly or house of reps member too)

I a m curious if almond milk uses more or less water than cow milk. I have an issue with grapes watered over head far more than almonds on drip

Just
for fun, I figured out how much water California uses to produce beer.
As far as I can put it together (see sources below):

It
takes at least 8 gallons of water to
produce a pint of beer (just for comparison with the poster-boy of California
agricultural water usage lately, 8 gallons would produce about 8 almonds;
and, in my horticultural usage of water, 8 gallons of water would supply one
rose bush with enough water for 8 weeks).

There
are 248 pints in a standard American barrel of beer.

It
thus takes 1,984 gallons of water to produce one barrel of beer.

Production
of beer in California in 2014 reached 3.5 million barrels.

If
my (hasty) calculations are correct, then, last year's total California beer
production guzzled 6,944,000,000 gallons of water.

If
we prioritize water usage, where does beer rank? Would you rather quaff
one pint of beer, or would you rather give your rose bush enough water to last
it two months? Both? Quite so: Welcome to California!

Sources:

http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/09/how-much-water-did-it-take-to-make-that-pint-of-beer/

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_pints_of_beer_in_a_barrel

http://www.californiacraftbeer.com/beer-stats/

I'd choose the rose bush. Nothing against beer, but I can go without liquor, not my garden! Roses are amazing :)

Yes, hiclover, we're actually pretty much on the same page about the situation. Though, on one side of my family, I'm the first generation not owning or working on a farm probably since Neanderthals ruled the earth--wait a minute, Neanderthals still rule the earth--let's just change that to "a long time"--I'm despite my sympathies emotional and otherwise perhaps a little less inclined to give a pass to Agriculture, as, owing to the proportions of usage, even a tiny change in Ag's practices, which would be barely noticed by either farmer or crop, would more than equal everything residential folks could do even after making the greatest and most life-intrusive sacrifices. Quite so, "reasonable" is very hard to define, and it's hard to think how to escape the fog of "subjective" in the situation. I've posted about the fact that responses to the drought seem largely driven by whose ox is being gored (for instance, urbanite apartment-dwellers naturally have less personal connection with horticulture than non-urbanites, and so, as a group, would see it as an expendable luxury; but those same urbanites might well cherish their beers, the production of which is, on a per drink/plant basis, much thirstier than horticulture--and yet, imagine the outcry if we were to propose the same cutbacks on the production of beer that are being demanded for "outdoor uses," though beer is certainly no less of an expendable luxury than a garden). I can only imagine what the fanciers of tropical fish are going through with this; and yet they have no less right to their enjoyments and dreams than anyone else. Politicians know that the feelings of the masses usually come to nothing simply through diffusion and in-fighting, and so they focus on special interest groups, which speak with greater clarity because they consider less, and whose campaign contributions are much more dependable. Agriculture and Commerce in general are only too happy to protect their interests by invalidating the importance of the water usages of the private sector; and the wastefulness and ignorance of many in the private sector make it easy for Ag and Com to do this. Yes, indeed, many have front lawns not because they like them but rather because that's just what everybody does; many drink beer for the same reason. An aesthete could say that a predominance of front lawns in a community gives a pleasing look of, yes, community to the whole; and those who ponder sociology and psychology would add that this has ramifications in making the members of that community feel a healthy togetherness, a community pride. Partisans of Ag and Com would roll their eyes at such thoughts; but, then, they would, wouldn't they?--because the integrity of communities is not their concern. Dedicated horticulturists and landscapists may well truly cherish a lawn, and indeed--as in my case--have designed their gardens, perhaps for decades, with the proportionality of lawn and garden, their sight-lines, their interplay, very much in mind. Ag, Com, and urbanites have no reason to care about this, and are only too happy to--in their own interests--invalidate the value of such considerations. The private sector, and we peaceful horticulturists in particular, do not have the big guns of Ag and Com. We do not have the ear of Politics except in the most perfunctory way. We do not speak with one voice; and what we do say is garbled. In our ranks we have those who don't really care what they do, have only a shallow understanding of horticulture or aesthetics or a sense of community or just about anything else, and/or who are lazy and so are only too happy to be supplied with any reason to give up the exertions and expenses required by lawns and gardens. We have in the private sector the well-meaning who automatically trust the loud voices of elected officialdom and journalism without looking into the matter, lazily and irresponsibly see things in black and white, and so, as you mention, foolishly take on an attitude of "all irrigation is wrong," not to mention "all lawns, all flowers, are bad"; they don't reflect on the fact that a high proportion of native plants are tendentially short-lived (I should add here that I have long been a proponent of native plants) and not very attractive much of the year: How gung-ho are these people so quick to jump on the bandwagon going to be in three or four years when they see those Salvias and Mimulus they made such an investment in are moribund, their yards look like a wasteland much of the year, the Agave specimens are growing too big, and that they've got to somehow, and with much pain, tease out the now-dead central mother plant from the middle of its surrounding offspring? When will they realize that the ants which once avoided the sodden ground of their former lawns are only too delighted with their new dryland landscaping and have made the homeowner's front-yard into a gigantic ant's nest? When will they reflect on the fact that all of the personal and intrusive efforts they have made, all the pain and expense they have endured, have in reality done effectively nothing to relieve the drought, but have only underwritten the production of a few more bushels of almonds?

The responsibilities of water usage should be commensurate with the proportion of usage. Anything else is inequitable and unjust.

California doesn't have a drought problem they have a water storage problem. Had the planned projects of the California State Water Project not been halted by enviormental activists starting in the 1970s water storage would have continued to expand to meet population growth.

http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_1_california-drought.html

We just passed a bond issue last year to increase water storage. Where are we with that?

Drought to Megaflood?

The water I use isn't wasted. The water everyone else uses is wasted. Pretty standard way of looking at things. Doesn't really matter. It's not really sustainable. Yeah, today if 30 million people save every drop of water then sure a few thousand people can keep using water to earn a living. That gets you thru this drought maybe, maybe not. Next drought when there's 5 million more people using the same limited water supply? Being that close to the edge drought after drought isn't a gamble that's going to work someday.

Obviously new water sources are needed. But that takes money, will power and foresight. Something our grandparents did when they built all the water projects we use today. And the last time our generation built a water project? Not many. We prefer to spend our time complaining about government and how much everyone else is wasting water.

Personally, I think the faster you use the water the faster everyone is going to do something to actually fix the problem. It's absolutely true that every gal you save only allows someone to use it however they want. If they can buy a gal of water for 2 cents to create 4 cents of income they're going to do it. Grow cotton...sure. Fracking...sure. High school car wash...sure. It's about the cost of water, not the amount. We all want cheap water and that's in short supply.

Raising the cost hurts the poor. They already conserve because they can't afford a bigger big bill. It the rich who just pay the fine and keep on watering their acres of grass bug me. They use rediculously more water and don't think 2x about who it really costs

Nestle has been stealing water to use for bottled water in California since 1980, i.e. without any kind of permit, unlawfully, and nothing has been done about that. Fracking, a disaster in every possible way, is still going on. Why isn't the government doing something about these two easily fixable problems? It makes you wonder who is being paid to turn a blind eye to something that is so completely irresponsible. Let's fix this before we wrangle about what else we should be doing. If private use of water is so miniscule, why am I being allowed to water only every Sunday and Thursday in this very hot garden? Whom will it help when the plants that birds, bees, snails, worms, mice and rats (food that snakes and raptors need) all die? I have never had a lawn, mulch heavily and spot water only where there is a plant that needs it. I've decreased the number of plants (mostly roses) in the garden. What more do they want from me?

A Swedish newspaper reported that California exports hay to China. Is it true?

Ingrid wrote: If private use of water is so miniscule, why am I being allowed to water only every Sunday and Thursday in this very hot garden?

--Those in power want to appear to be doing something about the drought (helps with public relations and re-election) without offending the powerful special interests.

Mariannese wrote: A Swedish newspaper reported that California exports hay to China. Is it true?

--Yes: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-feeding-china-hay-20140609-story.html#page=1

"Alfalfa is California’s single largest agricultural water user due to the amount grown, typically about 1 million acres, and its long growing season. Seasonal alfalfa water applications generally range from 4,000,000 to 5,500,000 acre-feet. "

Source: Alfalfa in California

Another source gives a comprehensive discussion of alfalfa production, and states:

"Gravity-fed surface flood irrigation is the most commonly used in California."

Source: Alfalfa production

Marianne, yes -- it's alfalfa. China's population growth long ago outstripped its sustainable water supply, so, ironically, we in California have been shipping our water (in the form of hay) to China, even as our own supply falls short.

subk3, the article you cite deserves more than a little refutation. Victor Davis Hanson, sitting down there on his raisin farm in Fresno and wishing to suck up cheap, taxpayer-subsidized Northern California water for his personal gain, finds maintenance of the salmon fisheries offensive. This Northern Californian (four generations, both sides), with family involved in ranching, dairy, and commercial fishing, takes exception to that. It is NOT a matter of 'favoring fish over people" and "pet salmon" (good grief, what an idiotic phrase), but allowing fisheries (which also provide jobs, by the way) and all the ecosystems upon which our lives depend to survive and function. I see no compelling reason to blight and destroy our lands in order to make Hanson wealthy.

The dams that were torpedoed would have been destructive of both fisheries (dams on the Klamath especially!) and other natural resources that support life here (not to mention the one, Auburn Dam, that was brilliantly planned to be built on a major earthquake fault...), "Wasted" water flowing through natural systems has the added benefit of diluting the toxic run-off from Central Valley agricultural fields and keeping my drinking water from being shut off because of salt water intrusion making it up to the pumps that pull fresh water out of the Delta. By the way, despite Hanson's claims, a dam that can be effective and useful for "flood control", (the pretense that allowed federal funding of California's dam projects) cannot also be storing water and, not so surprisingly, dams like the Coyote Dam on the Russian River, which the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1950s assured us would end the flooding on that river forever, have done nothing of the sort, since they are always kept as full as they can be, storing water.

Mr. Hanson seems to live in the past by a century or so, when agriculture was the "premier industry" of the state. No more. It is, at best, 2 to 3% of California's economy. Are we to continue squandering 80% of utilized water (40% of all fresh water available in California) to support that 2 or 3% of the economy (much of which now involves making big bucks by sending our water, in the form of commodities, to other countries, not "feeding our nation" as is often and disingenuously claimed). Market forces will eventually sort this out, not the "environmental activists".

I read that Newport Beach is about approving water restrictions, one of which is that one can't water within two days after a rain. Now, this is an example of something which sounds reasonable to the layman, but which in point of fact is counter-productive. (And, before I proceed further, I should state that I'm discussing a light or moderate rainfall, not a drenching storm.) In point of fact, experience demonstrates that it's very canny to water a day or so after it rains: The already damp ground allows the water you apply to penetrate deeper (dry soil resists water), and so is "stored" longer in the ground, puts off in an exponential way the next time you'll need to water, and further has the benefit of encouraging your plants' roots to grow deeper. If you wait until the ground is dry again to water, a larger portion of the water you apply will stay on or near the surface of the soil and evaporate more quickly. As alluded to in my earlier posting, such restrictions as this from Newport Beach are made off-the-cuff just so that whoever imposes them can appear to be doing something about the drought.

Um, it seems as though 'market forces' are the main culprit in this catastrophe since capital(ism) is the only game in town...while species compassion cannot be so easily monetised (not without all those tourists spending big bucks in 'petting zoos'...and creating a whole other problem). Environmental activism is the only hope.

I think it was the last state water board that included some comments on some water districts not pushing conservation because they could not afford the lowered income

One reason Victor Davis Hanson was whining is that the typical rate for a ccf (748 gallons) of government-supplied water paid by agriculture was, until recently, about $0.32 (yes, that's 32 cents) and often less, a subsidized rate that does not reflect the true costs of supplying the water. At the same time, the typical residential user was paying $3.00 per ccf, about ten times as much, or more. Because of the shortage and competition for what was available last summer, cost of re-sold (by those with access to it) government-supplied water to farmers in the Central Valley without senior water rights soared tenfold to about the same rate as paid by residential users. If they did not or could not get government-supplied water, they had to pay to access or pump their own groundwater, another relatively expensive proposition.

Hence, the resentment of folks like Mr. Hanson, who in the past had a pretty sweet deal but now must pay the same price for water as suburban and urban dwellers. This is in large part because, as he complains, those same urban and suburban citizen taxpayers grew weary, from the 1970s on, of supporting or paying for dams and other infrastructure that served mainly to keep water cheap for ag and damaged the environment, but did nothing much for them. So, extra capacity that would have mainly benefited ag and shielded it from the vagaries of drought and population increase was not built.

Those southern California reservoirs that Mr. Hanson mentions are full because their water managers paid folks with cheap water rights a market price to get it. This is something that is increasingly happening as push comes to shove with respect to water (farmers forgoing planting in order to sell water), and more likely to be the scenario for the future, I think, than the generally "environmentalist"-leaning suburban- and urban-ites of California, where most economic and voting (though not necessarily political) power lays, caving in and building environmentally destructive water projects. With ag holding 80% of delivered water, there would probably be a lot for urban/surburban dwellers to purchase before more infrastructure need be considered. This is what I meant by "market forces", Campanula. (and edit to add that this is one of those odd cases where, like carbon credits, market force can be an environmental-activist force, I think. If water is priced at its "true" cost, for example, the Chinese may find CA alfalfa a tad expensive.)

Agreed, Catspa...and I am sure that the UK favourite non-lactose substitute, almond milk, might be left lingering on the shelves if a 'fair' price was paid with a cost which considered those things less obviously equatable to 'market forces' - such as environmental destruction,

But if we ever fondly imagined we were living in a free trade universe, the current subsidies, tariffs, sanctions, trade alliances, backhanders and under the counter nudges and winks (not to mention the skewed commodities 'markets') should really put paid to that.

I, like many, am terminally confused by that right wing vilification of the 'state', while relying on the revivifying effect of the 'market'.

Too true, Campanula. For instance, the oil and coal industries in the U.S. have forever avoided responsibility for the externalities of their industries, keeping our fossil energy prices extremely low, compared to the costs their use imposes on society and government. And agreed, there are generally no free markets, in reality, and right wing-leaning folks are sometimes quite unhappy when, by some odd turn of events, one actually exists, despite their professed adoration of the "invisible hand". The history of water in California is a truly crazy and byzantine example of how all these forces interact and play out.

Thank you Catspa for taking on that Victor Davis Hanson article. Indeed, if everyone paid a market rate for water, it would sort out a lot of problems. That said, I believe that agriculture should be subsidized to some degree, if not because of jobs, then because of land use. Soils in California's central valley is filled with 2000 feet of lightly weathered alluvium. It is among the best soils in the world for growing crops. These soils can grow more food, with fewer inputs (the main one is water) than almost anywhere else on earth. It takes a lot of water to farm here, but it is going to take a lot of phosphorus to do it elsewhere. Agricultural lands are also important habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. And yeah Nik, much of the Central Valley is flood prone too. Seems like a bad idea to convert it to housing, which is what I'm afraid will happen.

But yeah, the idea of increasing storage is preposterous. All of the good dam sites have been taken. I've often marveled that a dam wasn't built between Cathedral Rocks and El Cap in Yosemite Valley and then been thankful that previous generations had the foresight not to build one there.