So50 Case Study

The agriculture industry lost around 1.7 billion dollars, due to not having the proper water allocations for the fields. On the west wide of the valley, half of their 600,000 acres of farmland went fallow, because they didn’t have enough water to farm them. And about 14,500 farm workers in the Central Valley lost their jobs. Without the proper water allocations, farmers will have to continue to pump ground water at extremely high costs, which will force people out of the industry and raise the price of the products produced by the those who can stay in. The impact of the fight over water ripples far beyond those just in agriculture, it affects all of

In the his brief but effectual article “The Wrong Way to Think about California Water”, the author Michael Hiltzik presents to the reader “a guide to the wrong ways to think about California water, and the glimmer of a better way”(Hiltzik). In the short piece, Hiltzik argues that the current debate on how California should be spending its meager allowance of water during the current drought is being thoroughly misguided. Hiltzik writes that people should stop criticizing businesses that consume “large” amounts of water, rather, the water already being used should be utilized more efficiently and effectively. “The only lasting solutions include creating a better-functioning water market with transparent pricing and transfers, so that water

In my opinion, Yuma farmers should keep their existing water rights because they are big farmers of lettuce. Lettuce is one of the most popular vegetable in the United States. A fact that proves claim #1 is in paragraph 1. It says that if you eat lettuce at Thanksgiving to April than it is most likely from Yuma. So if they cut Yuma's water supply, the lettuce might die. If the lettuce dies, than there is going to be a lettuce shortage. Another fact from the article is in the section that is titled "Older Rights Means more Water." In this section, it staits that Yuma has one of the oldest water rights which leads to more water. If their rights were taken away, then you wouldn't have the leafy greens that you love during late fall, winter, or

A potential solution for farmers would be to switch to a subsurface drip irrigation system that could permanently cut farmers' water use by 25 to 50 percent. This would alleviate some of the need for conservation and free up more state water reserves for urban use during time of regional drought (U.S. Water News Online).

If the east side farmers have it there way they will continue to be able to produce crops and farming on the east-side will still be a possibility. The Friant Dam has been irrigating the east side of the valley since 1944. Over 95% of all water collected at Millerton is used to help agriculture. It waters one million acres of farmland and because of it in the last 40 years the farming on the east side has taken over Southern California as the states leader in citrus farming, the value of this is 2.1 billion and it continues to grow. Although the farmers would prosper the environment would still suffer and the salmon run of yester year would still be an impossibility. The east side farmers argue that if there water was taken away only about a quarter of the east side could be farmed without Millerton. Without Millerton's water the farmers would have had to continue to pump their water from underground aquifers and if that had happened those aquifers would have gone dry 60 years ago.

The State of Colorado has suffered from a water shortage in recent years; a difficult situation which is easily visible when viewing the quickly shortening length of the Colorado River. Lake Mead, for example, is roughly 130 feet lower than it once was, marked by the stained rock which towers above the current water level. “The river has become a perfect symbol of what happens when we ask too much of a limited resource: it disappears. In fact, the Colorado no longer regularly reaches the sea” (Zielinski, 2010). Legislation was implemented early on to address this issue, though the results were (perhaps not surprisingly) rather unanticipated, regarding

The answer to our drought will not be solved in a short amount of time, as a complex issue such as this requires long-term thinking. The state needs to update the water capture delivery systems and fix the groundwater problem due to a lack of regulation.

Would you like to go without a shower for five months? California right now are in an unfavorable and enormous drought. As a result, many citizens don’t have water to drink water, flush the toilet, take a shower, and wash the dishes. Also, Farmers don’t have enough water to harvest crops so if they can’t harvest crops, we won’t have enough food. Therefore, I support the regulations that allow the California Farm Bureau to control groundwater for all citizens.

Envision yourself, about to complete a straightforward, everyday thing such as washing the dishes, suddenly to your surprise there is no water coming out of the faucet. Well for the civilians of East Porterville this is their reality. California has always had very lenient and ineffective groundwater regulations. Today, this has become a major issue, especially with California's severe drought. The regulation of the aquifer is a necessity because cleanliness is a basic human right and by not regulating the groundwater and leaving civilians with no working water, that right is taken away. The right to bathe, wash your hands, and have a working toilet is simply no more. Furthermore there are scientific statements, proving that excessively pumping groundwater will lower the water levels, which will likely lead to the land level sinking as well.

Because of the judge’s ruling that the legislature is the only way to change this, that means a bill is how it will have to be fixed. The best option to alleviate farm runoff would be to impose similar regulations to what the state of Minnesota has done. The

The farmers need water for their crops and I don’t think that they want to grow less crops, also the people that don’t get a lot of water or anyone that does should get the water.

Texas, with its abundances of natural resources, is facing a new demon, one that doesn’t even seem possible, a shortage of water. Water, without it nothing can survive. Texas is the second largest state for landmass in the nation and ninth for water square miles. Within the borders of Texas are more than 100 lakes, 14 major rivers, and 23 aquifers, so why has water become such an important issue for the state? Politicians and conservationists all agree that without a new working water plan, the state could be facing one of the most damaging environmental disasters they have ever seen. The issues that shape the states positions are population growth, current drought conditions, and who actually owns the water.

Regardless of what water restrictions come down the pipeline via our governor or legislators, folks (mostly businesses and developments) will continue to water just as they see fit as it's hard to shake the "I pay for it so why not" mentality. Or quite simply they don't care. The water "is" available (FOR NOW!) and honestly, they don't have the city breathing down there necks with any consequence as when you complain and or report; Folsom only has one code enforcement officer... In a city of 70,000+ we have one guy! Absolute complete failure to plan. We literally have FOUR asst. City managers, TWO city attorneys, FIVE pin head council members (including 1 lame duck Mayor) but only ONE code enforcement officer handling everything from sign ordinance to water complaints.

Yet, humans have limited control on natural events, so this only reinforces the importance of managing water wisely. Recently California’s government has begun to focus more on sustaining and restoring the water supply. Dale Kasler (2016) articulates in his article some of the steps they have decided to make to solve this serious issue. The government has made the following investments: “$415 million for watershed restoration and other environmental aid for Lake Tahoe; up to $335 million for two proposed reservoirs in California, including the Sites reservoir north of Sacramento; $880 million for flood-control projects on the American and Sacramento rivers in Sacramento; and $780 million for flood-control projects in West Sacramento” (para. 10). This could be the first step to restoring the water to California. But these

Thanks for commenting. There are many topics to discuss but my top priorities are: 1. Focus on bringing non-retail jobs to Folsom. Folsom suffers from a retail-based jobs market which keeps our jobless rate low, but floods Folsom with lower wages and hi-attrition rates. Many folks like myself, who grew up Folsom, can't afford to live and work in Folsom. I've experienced this first hand and so will many others. All it takes is Intel to decided to close up shop and Folsom is in trouble. I want to reenergizing and diversify Folsom’s economy and bring Folsom to the new age. 2. Evaluation of the entire South of 50 (Sphere of influence) expansion and the water component with it. This project is obviously on it’s way now and I want to ensure its implemented