Talk:Water in California

California C‑class Top‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is one source enough to brand this as the most controversial in the world? I hope not. --SVTCobra (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A recent change

Although, as stated below, numerous studies note that "developed" water as distributed in California goes 80% to agriculture (much of which is reused) the article states "The largest single user of water in California is the environment," and by this measure agriculture uses 40%. The word "user" is an active one, as is use, which means taking advantage of something or consuming it. Plants and animals use water, but their populations and behavior change as available water fluctuates. In other words the environment is at a subsistence level, making do with what exists. Human water use in California is far beyond subsistence. Humans can withdraw available water and thereby constrain ecological populations. Plants and animals cannot do the same to us. It seems far-fetched to claim that environmental water flows are used by the ecosystem in the sense that humans use water.

The last paragraph in the section titled "Uses of Water" claims "During the 2014 drought, after the Obama administration allocated no water to the Central Valley Project, hundreds of homes in the Central Valley lost their domestic wells and lost all water service to their homes. [19] Wells also failed in rural schools in Madera and Tulare counties, keeping them from providing necessary services to the students who attend them." The link is to an article that makes no mention to any administration decision to allocate water to the CVP: [1] This is a position taken by Republican Rep. McCarthy, whose district covers Bakersfield, but has little scientific merit. Unfortunately this represents the kind of tactical misinformation that is used in California's water wars. I removed said paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BriCoyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the comments above, I can't find this information in the source cited. From what I can tell, the source "CDFA, "Water and the California Farmer," 2014" refers to the following PDF http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/drought/docs/Water&CalFarmer2014.pdf and blog post. http://plantingseedsblog.cdfa.ca.gov/wordpress/?p=6738 I'll keep digging but if more information about the source isn't presented then I'll edit to a more neutral point of view in two or three weeks with other sources. In the meantime I'm flagging the source as questionable. Geodanny (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like Geodanny to follow up on the notation from over 6 months ago. The 80% agricultural use statistic is still in this Wikipedia entry, and as he said, the cited reference ("CDFA, "Water and the California Farmer," 2014") only shows agricultural use as 40%, because it breaks up Ag use and "Environmental" use as two different consumption amounts. Since the media and even the Governor of California continually cite this 80% statistic, PERHAPS taken from Wikipedia, this really needs to be verified and updated.

Water Disputes

The correct place to discuss disputes between users is here on the talk page. Currently, a little spat seems to be brewing between someone who thinks a dispute between MWD and San Diego deserves some mention. I think it may, but in greater detail and with more historical info; otherwise it is just a minor current event. In fact, several of the different disputes deserve and have their own wiki pages to discuss the colorful history, characters, and court dramas. San Diego's spat is ultimately minor in the whole saga of California water -- kind of like Pasadena v. Alhambra for Raymond Basin water. The same can be said of the other disputes mention, which are actually part of larger disputes. It was huge when it happened but is barely a footnote now. More epic right now are the battles in the north between the "area of origin" for water exported south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Geodanny (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pueblo Water Rights

I revised the changes on pueblo water rights to reflect current California law. Pueblo water rights exist in California law. This is not New Mexico. We can start a new article to discuss pueblo water rights if need be but this is not the article to discuss current New Mexico or other state water law. This article is long enough.

Controversial assertions such as that it was fabricated need citations. The N.M. Supreme Court was not willing to make go that far. Geodanny (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uses of Water

I just reversed changes made to the section about uses of water. It was well cited but the person who removed the content said they were invalid citations.

The text in question: "About 80-85% of all developed water in California is used for agricultural purposes. This water irrigates almost 29 million acres (120,000 km2), which grows 350 different crops.[8] Urban users consume 10% of the water, or around 8,700,000 acre feet (10.7 km3).[9] Industry receives the remnant of the water supply.[10]"

If you disagree with my bringing the text back then talk it out here before removing the content again. If the citations are indeed invalid then challenge them and provide more recent statistics on water use and citations for those assertions. Geodanny (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This contradicts this source [2] which is from a reliable non-profit, which states that 40% is used for agriculture; backed up by the 2009 California Water Plan (a core governing document for water management in CA) [3]. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

more on uses of water... to insert somewhere: "California accounts for about 10% of total freshwater withdrawals" from http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1405/pdf/circ1405.pdf -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally disagree with the deletion of the referenced text, on basic principles. I've never heard anyone describing the leaving of water in place as an "Environmental Use", and think that this whole section has an unacceptable bias towards agriculture. Based on the data currently included in the article, agriculture uses 80% of the water removed from the surface and aquifers, and I believe that is the way water use should be stated. The section "Environmental Use" should be deleted entirelyNigelrg (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC) As no moderator has commented on my last post, I've implemented my own suggestions. In doing so, I discovered that there was no mention of the rice industry - a serious omission, which I corrected. There was also an irrelevant and misleading reference to horses, which I deleted. Likewise, I saw that cotton growing is not mentioned, and the section on Urban/Residential Use dwells on minutia, but I don't have the time to modify these. This whole article has clearly been written by a representative of Big Agriculture, and requires a complete overhaul to be unbiased. Nigelrg (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reorganization

I think the "water rights" section should go under the "planning and management" section, as water rights are a part of the complex planning that goes into water management in california. I'll make this change now, but feel free to discuss/revert. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]