Let me start by saying that I do not approve or disapprove of the way things are. Water rights are complicated. In some cases, local people might control the water rights to where they live. Sometimes those rights are sold to others. Sometimes water rights are held by state or federal governments. My guess is that AG interests hold enough rights to reservoirs in those places you listed (just as Russ mentioned) and that that surface water will go to Central Valley (particularly San Joachin Valley and Tulare Lake Basin) farmers. At the same time, they will refrain from using well water so that the groundwater aquifers can recover a little bit (or at least not be drawn further down). They will likely leave no land fallow this year and will try to make up for not being able to plant as much during the previous five years. Of course, greater produce supply will drive down prices.Lumbergh21 wrote:And what does aquifer water levels have to do with surface water usage? If your a water system that is supplied by Shasta, Oroville, and any one of the smaller reservoirs in the state, the governor is still requiring you to enforce conservation with fines if you fail to make your customers conserve.
There was a time when LA and Imperial Valley farmers drew almost every last drop of water out of the CO River, but Mexico successfully won a case that they held rights to a certain amount of the water based on historical flows through their land. There is the potential for a lot of AG in the Imperial Valley. As Las Vegas and other places that draw from the CO have grown, there is less left for downstream usage. When the state says that not all of CA is out of drought, that includes the Imperial Valley. I haven't read how the snowpack is doing on the western slopes of the Rockies, but a lot of that flow needs to go toward refilling Lakes Mead and Powell and how much is left for Vegas, Imperial Valley AG, LA, and Mexico is likely still below historical averages. Imperial Valley farmers may plant more than the last several years if they can get more water, but they most likely will be nowhere near the acreage they once were able to plant.
I don't know a whole lot about water rights law, but I do know that the people who live in a place don't necessarily "own" the precipitation that falls there. Remember that LA lawyers tricked Owens Valley residents to sign away the rights to most of their water. Residents were not able to change that even a century later, but environmentalists were able to get courts to restore a bit of that water to the basin in an effort to stabilize Mono Lake. Water rights go far beyond local control and there are a lot of powerful players involved. Please don't shoot me for saying all this
cause I didn't make the rules. All I'm saying is that from a legal standpoint, water rights is a very complicated thing, something way beyond my station in life.
Ok, I had to get on this soapbox. It irks me no end with laymen think they know better than the entire DWR, which is one state agency that is full of very well qualified professionals, running a very complex water system. I think they do a really great job. Very dedicated; very capable.
