- It's all about the
- Last week, I mentioned that MWD is planning to spend $335 million on turf removal. Fleck reports that this program will "save" water (assuming turf replaced by rocks?) at a cost of $1,400/af. Is this smarter than (a) buying water from farmers who get $200/af of profits (high number) or (b) raising prices?
- Why do farmers "waste water on low value crops"? Government subsidies for cotton? Or maybe it's subsidized infrastructure? How about prohibitions on trading "use it or lose it" rights? Oh-so-many screw ups!
- Planners need to stop assuming water is there for growth. Semi-related: We wouldn't need apps to track our water use if higher prices made water use worth tracking. It's not like we have apps for tracking our wine consumption.
- Are migrants responsible for water shortage in California, where 1 in 4 people are born outside the state? Here's a good rebuttal, but I'll add this: California could double its population (to 65 million people) without taking water from current residents... by shifting 25 percent of agricultural water to cities. Maybe some people cannot do the math, but here's the "gut interpretation" -- shortages result when ALL demand exceeds supply, not when one part of demand grows. (NB: I am not saying that population is not a problem, just that it's not the cause of California's water problems -- unless you include food exports!)