[Graybeard58]

that system recently developed a kink when a federal judge ordered new restrictions on pumping to save threatened fish.

[investigateworld]

The free market at work. Well sorta, it was subsidized water to begin with.

Government of any sort attempts to influence for a positive (in the public view) outcome, but alas...

And this is Universal, recall immediately after WW2, the Allies supplied diesel to the French fishermen in hopes of increasing protein in the diets of post occupation nations.

Anyone want to venture a guess where the diesel went?

[marktwain]

“Water on California’s open market typically sells for $50 per acre-foot in wet years. But now it is expected to go for as much as $200. Farmers, however, pay $30 to $60, rates that are set under state and federal policy. (An acre-foot is enough water to cover an acre to a depth of one foot.) “

---

What the farmers want to do is exactly right. Water should be on the market as a commodity. It will then go where it is needed the most. Have the State and Federal governement negotiate the current water rights mess to allocate percentages of the available water supply in line with the current law, then let the owners sell it for all the market will bear. The market will allocate the water far better and more efficiently than any regulatory scheme could.

[modican]

Calif. farmers want to sell water,

Can't eat money.
Farmers turn Corn into ethanol, Water into profit...
The prophecies of idolizing the golden cow, has arrived.

[Imperialist]

If the farmers are no longer using the water for farming, then why can they still get the farmers subsidized water rate? Seems to me they stop farming, they stop getting the discount and find something else to do... I never heard of a water farmer anyway...

[GovernmentShrinker]

If there had been a free market for water in the first place, there’s no way anybody ever would have started commercial rice-growing operations in the desert. Way past time to shut down that idiocy.

[Parmy]

Here in Washington State, this has been done for years. The water rights aren't actually sold. Just the water that the rights represent of a year, two years or whatever agreement is made. This is done with the approval of the individual water district.

Also, a number of the water districts have been systematically piping their delivery ditches. This has caused an increase in the amount of water the districts have available to use because open canals and ditches leak. They leak because of the natural porousness of the soil, mice, gopher and muskrat holes.

But the piping has caused consternation with the environmentalists. Why? Because a lot of the wetlands caused by the leaking ditches and canals dried up.

[roadcat]

Some environmentalists are troubled by farmers' efforts to sell their water, and warn that such deals don't begin to address the long-term problem.

Save the environment now, return the Los Angeles area back to it's original native environment. Too many people with their swimming pools in a desert area, sucking the life out of California. Then northern water can stay in the north, and there wouldn't be shortages from the Colorado River. L.A. is the long-term problem.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

California created its own problem by refusing to allow desalinization plants to be built.

Ironically, if they still are desperate enough, there are better technologies being developed for desalinization now, that would permit it to be done using much less energy.

I remember that they were weeping and gnashing their teeth that desalinization would change the salinity of ocean water and confuse the wales and other sea creatures that use it to navigate.

The new technologies could probably be adapted so that once the salts were removed from the ocean water, they could be returned to the sea near where they were taken. But they would probably get terribly upset about that as well.

I suppose it’s not our fault if they just don’t grasp the whole “technology can make your life better” thing. But if they want to wear wooden shoes and eat lawn clippings, no skin off my nose.

[Jimmy Valentine]

Government planning at work. Subsidized water allows them to grow rice in the desert. Now the farmers canmake mo0re money selling their water to Los Angeles.

The solution to the problem is simple; stop the subsidies and let everyone pay market price.

[kittymyrib]

There has been major flooding in CA for the past 10 days, with even heavier rain and snow to hit tomorrow. This was posted in November. A lot has changed since then. Those farmers better start planting as soon as the soil dries out, because the water scare might be over for a while.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Instead of sowing in April, Rolen plans to let 100 of his 250 acres of white rice lie fallow and sell his irrigation water on the open market, where it could fetch up to three times the normal price.

Why are we growing rice in the desert?

[Nuc1]

I’m going to go out on a limb here. Since the large metro areas built in the deserts suck up the most water, causing serious problems everywhere upstream, why not require the desert cities to harvest water from the Pacific Ocean. Plenty of fresh water there, just needs a little processing. Better get started building the plants. I think they should pay for the water they use rather than stealing other folks water, don’t you?