So I'm hearing a lot of misinformation here in these comments. I recently attended a talk [1] by the Chair of the CA water board (Felicia Marcus) and it was very illuminating.

!!! WATCH THIS VIDEO LINKED AT THE END !!!. It was for MIT club of NorCal and is like 2 hours, so its far more technical/deep and BALANCED than anything you'll find on CNN/nytimes/etc.

I'll try to summarize some of her points here that I think would be useful and relevant, but really you should watch her speak in that link.

1) We talk about 80% going to agriculture, as if there some single reservoir that we all drink out of. Everyone gets their water from different sources, and they're all suitable for different uses. SF, for example, has an exclusive license to Hetch Hetchy water source. Agriculture is never going to see that and doesn't affect us.

2) There are rural parts of CA that have no water coming out of the tap. She said that was her #1 priority right now.

3) We need lots of water to feed the nation. CA is one of 5 Mediterranean climates in the world, and that makes it suitable to grow all kinds of stuff that doesn't grow anywhere else. 2% GDP is irrelevant because you die without food.

4) As a culture we don't have a connection to agriculture, and it is causing drifts on both sides. The farmers are pointing fingers at urban areas, and vice versa.

5) We have less a rain problem and more a storage problem. 1900-2000 was unusually wet for CA and so we didn't build enough storage for the dry years. Groundwater is actually the most environmentally friendly storage and we get something like 40% normally of our water from it, and 60% now (I think?)

6) We don't have a market planned economy. You can't tell farmers what to grow. There is no 5 year plan -- this isn't china.

7) The state is doing a lot of things to combat these issues all simultaneously. The issue is extremely complex and multi-pronged. You'd likely be impressed with all the projects under way.

8) Ground water rights can be changed at a local county level very quickly. They have a huge amount of power and need to be first to do so. It's a bit of a mexican stand off between them, but this is where culture and local advocacy can make a difference. Santa Cruz has done really well with this, and I think San Diego as well.

9) CA does have the power to come down on people/counties/companies that they view as using excessive resources... it's built into the CA constitution. All they need to do is threaten and people change. They've done that several times.

10) We say oh, my shower is like 1% of the problem. Getting water at a restaurant is 0.5% of the problem. It's still water, waste is waste, and we need everything we can get.

11) We don't reuse/capture water efficiently or at all. Especially floods. To combat this we need lot of small efficient that add up. Capturing storm water is one example. Recycling waste water is another, and there's an additional 10% that can be gained through forrest management in the sierras better directing the melting snow run off (!).

12) CA is seeing the mistakes of San Paulo and Australia and trying not to repeat them. They're collaborating world-wide on these issues... lots of Israeli tech is making its way to desalination. Smart people are being resourceful and not isolationist about this.

WATCH THIS:
[1] http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/mitcnc/videos/31839-califo...