California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers
Source: New York Times
LOS ANGELES Farmers with rights to California water dating back to the Gold Rush will face sharp cutbacks, the first reduction in their water use since 1977, state officials announced Friday. State officials announced that rights dating to 1903 would be restricted, but said such restrictions will grow as the summer months go on, with the state facing a prolonged drought that shows few signs of easing.
Demand in our key rivers systems are outstripping supply, said Caren Trgovcich, the State Water Resources Control Boards chief deputy director. Other cuts may be imminent.
The cut impacts nearly 300 water right holders in the San Joaquin and Sacramento watersheds and delta whose claim to water came after 1903. State officials said that further curtailments are being considered weekly.
The restrictions could cause the widespread fallowing of cropland in areas that have so far been largely exempt from cutbacks. The impact of the cuts are likely to be felt far more broadly than they were in the 1970s, because the state now has more authority and ability to measure how water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is used.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/california-announces-restrictions-on-water-use-by-farmers.html
In case you hit a paywall, here is another source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/california-orders-large-water-cuts-farmers-31729089
I'm in Northern California, where we've been told to reduce our water usage by 25 percent or face fines.
I have heard that Beverly Hills has no restrictions. Don't know if that's true or not. If so, then this really sucks.
Journeyman
(15,040 posts)Watering of plants and lawns is highly restricted, fines for non-compliance are in place, and the same general Level 2 Water Emergency regulations are in effect.
Here's an easily found link to read more:
http://beverlyhills.org/living/recyclingandconservation/water/faq/web.jsp
There are, of course, inherent problems involved with trying to force the wealthy to comply with restrictions, no matter how "mandatory" they may be, but to pass rumors that cities in the Southland are exempt from the rules is not helpful.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I don't live there. I know people that work in Beverly Hills and made the assumption based on what they see
Thank you for the correct information. I do appreciate it.
I don't consider saying "I don't know" as passing rumor.
alboe
(192 posts)I took it as just asking a question! And it got us information. Thank you!
marym625
(17,997 posts)I appreciate that
forest444
(5,902 posts)Because little San Juan Capistrano (of migrating Argentine Swallows fame), about an hour to the south, is actively trying to wiggle out of its water use restrictions as we speak.
http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2015/world/california-court-despite-drought-questions-popular-water-pricing-tool/
The article makes no mention of this; but I strongly suspect that the well-connected residents of the Hunt Club (an exclusive gated community known by many locals as the "C*nt Club", for obvious reasons) have an oar in this one.
For those not familiar, the Hunt Club is a very exclusive gated community east of downtown SJC, known almost as much for its Republican fundraisers as for its very extensive and lushly landscaped front lawns. Capistrano may roast, it's said, but nary an afternoon goes by in the Hunt Club without the staccato sound of high-flow sprinklers drenching lawn and driveway alike.
They are, as you can imagine, not about to sit by let their watering privileges by encroached by any namby-pamby lawmaker - least of all "that Commie-nist Governor Moonbeam!"
Qué será.
SunSeeker
(51,715 posts)Time to stop planting water-intensive rice and alfalfa in arid California, where it was never meant to grow. The only reason those Pre-1903 water right holders maintain those crops is the artificially low price they pay for their water...just a tiny fraction of what the rest of us pay.
valerief
(53,235 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)In some cases, the water rights are used by industrial farms. And in some cases they are used by "small" farmers, in that it is a family-owned farm instead of a large-corporation-owned farm.
Though those family farms are probably very big. These kinds of water rights are very important for running a large operation, so they're generally not used by what most people consider a "small" farm.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)So Big Agra if the restriction would have any impact. That's a lot of water for just 300 farms. They have to be huge.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I forget the exact %, but it was at least 80%, of California's water use is for ag, mostly big business irrigated ag and much of the product grown is for export. In a record drought, they should have been the first place to cut, not the last, they're taking California's water and profiting from it to export ag products while the residents are in dire straights.
Well, I guess the real first place to cut should have been Nestle, who bottles water, sells some of it back to Californians in bottles, and exports more of it, making huge profits while our water supply is depleted. About time we stood up to big business interests on this issue.
alboe
(192 posts)Along with their executive that says we have no rights to water!
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I would auto-eliminate everything West of the Mississippi River.
valerief
(53,235 posts)(BTW, I'm obviously not referring to the SANE people south of the Ohio. I just wish there were MORE of them.)
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)now they can address the mangled, gushing stumps that used to be your arms and legs"