California drought pits farmers vs. cities. But neither is the biggest water victim
The West was not built by farmers and ranchers. It was built by cities and towns.
The West was not built by farmers and ranchers. It was built by cities and towns.
California’s water crisis isn’t going to end until there’s a solution. Some people are counting on the government to find one. But there’s a problem with that.
By Don Thompson
The state may find itself in the unenviable position of having to buy out a water district in order to protect an urban watershed and its farmers.
Cities and towns have paid for water. They have invested in infrastructure to capture rain and turn the water into drinking water and irrigation water. The same is true for the agriculture in an area. Most of the area that is irrigated in the state’s agricultural areas is in the cities of which those city water districts own the water rights.
The city of Los Angeles, by the way, is the largest urban water district in the country in terms of water use and the biggest in terms of revenue.
The city of Los Angeles, by the way, is the largest urban water district in the country in terms of water use and the biggest in terms of revenue.
So when you have the state come to the table with water in hand for the city to use and you have that amount of city water that is being used for drinking water and for irrigation, well, you have to ask the question: who owns that water right? And the answer to that question is really critical to the future of the West.
The urban water districts, who have been paying for water and having some sort of control over the water, have had a legal right to the water for the longest time. The state has given the right to cities and to agricultural areas, but never to the farms themselves.
In Los Angeles, that has been going on for decades. You could even say that has been going on forever. But it’s a very different situation in the West, especially in California.
The farmers are paying a lot of money.