Governor Brown's mandate to reduce residential water use, in the face of a drought approaching epic proportions, is a very small and halting step in the right direction. Cutting residential water use, particularly as regards to maintaining lush lawns and gardens in a dry land, is certainly worthwhile and long overdue.
But this is just a drop in the bucket so to speak since residential water use is but a small portion of the state's water use. No doubt there will be more to come and the shape of those things to come may involve some direly needed governmental action that runs contrary to prevailing ideology regarding private property rights and government's role in a market economy, or not.
The California drought has set the stage for a great battle between the urban based economic interests and agriculture. Agriculture trumped mining by way of court cases and legislation as the dominant organized economic force in California in the late 1800s. But since then, in spite of the burgeoning abundance of agricultural production in California, it has been outpaced by the growth of other economic sectors to the point that agricultural sales now represent less than 2% of California's gross state product.
Most of the state's publicly owned water supplies are the product of massive and complex public works systems and is derived from rain and snow melt runoff. There's only 1 year's worth of this water left stored in reservoirs.
Groundwater (i.e. subsurface aquifers) belongs to those who own the land above them. Although it is estimated that there is perhaps 3 years of water in these aquifers nobody knows because landowners have not been required to monitor or report how much water to which they have access or use.
I have no idea how long it would take or even if it would be possible or desirable for the state to wrest control from these aquifers from their current owners. Should the public get control of this water, deplete it, and the drought persists for more than three years, what then?
Food, like water and air, is deceptively cheap for most of us, given its importance to survival. Much of California's agriculture production consists of what might be considered luxury foods: that is they are very costly in terms of water use, yummy but unessential for survival, and nutritionally replaceable with more affordable substitutes.
California's top-ten valued commodities for 2013 are:
Milk — $7.6 billion
Almonds — $5.8 billion
Grapes — $5.6 billion
Cattle, Calves — $3.05 billion
Strawberries — $2.2 billion
Walnuts — $1.8 billion
Lettuce — $1.7 billion
Hay — $1.6 billion
Tomatoes — $1.2 billion
Nursery plants— $1.2 billion
Unfortunately, the state will not (cannot?) tell farmers what to grow and this principle was reaffirmed in Governor Brown's recent announcement mandating reductions in residential water use. Because, you know, markets.
California is controlled by Democrats. The size and importance of the state's economy make what happens here a matter of both national and international concern. Will the Democrats step up and take a bold leadership role in solving this conundrum in which the market economy meets a natural disaster of epic proportions? Will we be able in the end to say "heckuva job Brownie" without irony?
We need a plan. Suggestions welcome.
1:50 PM PT: Thanks for the very thoughtful and informative comments.