Dave (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:13 pm Chances are nearly 100% that the farms in California have the rights to the water they use.
The problem isn't so much "greedy corporations" but a water system in California that was created 100 years ago if not longer. That system has never been changed or updated. It's a bizarre collection of land rights, mineral rights, water rights, all sorts of other archaic agreements, land grants, rights-of-way, and deeds. (perhaps a Tontine or two).
It is much easier to the Governor of California (regardless of who he is, or his political party) to ask the household consumer to cut back on water because that involves letting their lawn die, or driving a dirty car, or every citizen adjusting to smelly feet and stinky armpits.
It is much harder for any political authority to ask farmers to stop growing and to use less water because that throws people out of jobs and into unemployment.
Personally, smelly feet and stinky armpits (on alternating Tuesdays and Thursdays) are much more preferable than raising the unemployment rate by closing farms.
The best deal would be for California to subsidize crop production and maintain the levels of agriculture, while using less water. This can be done by using less water intensive means of supplying the water -- think drip irrigation rather than flood irrigation.
That, however, is a political solution that has escaped California for many decades, if not a century.
Deeded Water Rights before 1915 require a water reduction of 85%
Deeded Water Rights after 1915, no water.
I have pre 1915 deeded water rights on ranch property between Visalia and Sequoia.
Moi
