Talk:Water in California

Untitled

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LJw. Peer reviewers: LJw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Gmousalimas, JeshuaKJohn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2020 and 22 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marissah3220.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Water Uses

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)

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

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.148.2 (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

To the last commenter, the CDFA qualifies as a captured regulator and has a vested interest in presenting that lower number for ag consumption. Here is a good blog post that discusses the topic and why those numbers are misleading. http://californiawaterblog.com/2011/05/05/water%E2%80%94who-uses-how-much/ There are other reports from other State agencies that provide the 80% consumption number. I've seen one recently but can't remember where, although its likely to be the Department of Water Resources (DWR) site or the California Water Plan. PPIC provides the 80% number as well as other stats that can be used in this wikipedia article http://ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_WaterUseJTF.pdf 172.14.119.6 (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Dattarao, J. V. (2012). The human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship Research, 1(1), 45-52. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1426262001?accountid=26218 Johnson, D. (1998). Averting a water crisis. The Futurist, 32(2), 7. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/218567840?accountid=26218 The right to water. (2010). Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations HIgh Commissioner for Human Rights. Victor, D. (2013, May 1). A Political Theory of Water Governance. Retrieved from http://ilar.ucsd.edu/assets/001/505394.pdf "Seawater Desalination." Seawater Desalination. San Diego County Water Authority, 2015. Web. 14 Apr. 2015. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmicksl (talk • contribs) 14:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It took me longer to return to this than intended. I just revised the title of this section of Talk so it is descriptive of the issue being discussed -- the uses of water section. I just revised the Uses of Water section to note that relying solely on the broader numbers is controversial and two reasons why. More changes need to be made but this is the most impactful and I think address the points noted above. Geodanny (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As of 2022, there are new regulations and restrictions regarding urban and residential water use due to the concern of drought prevention. It could perhaps be useful to include more up-to-date information in this section by mentioning the current state of residential water use restrictions. Warrenbergman (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

Environmental Use

The article states that "Water use in California is used approximately 39% agricultural use, 51% environmental use and 11% urban use" and then gives a rundown on both urban and agricultural use but not environmental which is apparently where the majority goes. The article is horribly incomplete without any further mention of where the majority of water is being used.

drought

bananasoldier and I are working on a draft of a new article to cover drought -- Draft:Drought_in_California -- all are welcome to help out to get it publishable. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

water covering shadow balls

Maybe someone could add the shadow balls. This is even worth an own article. --Itu (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OK: Shade balls still existed.(more) --Itu (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Planning and Management

The projected population increase was way off; it was from a 1987 (1997?) citation. I changed it to reference the State of California Population Projections with baseline of 2013 of almost 50 million by 2050. However, the 2nd sentence is now off but I am unwilling to chase down the consequences of the population increase on water shortages. I would mark it as questionable but not sure how. I realize now that changing one thing can have implications through the article. I'll think twice about it in the future.

Also overall, the Talk section should have default headings that correspond to the Article headings. Otherwise it's too confusing as to where to comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristoGilberti (talk • contribs) 21:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

California water Plans

In reviewing the last paragraph of the California Water Plan section, I felt like there were some grammatical errors to be cleaned up, but also I think the entire paragraph could use some updating. I was thinking that desalination would be better served as a subheading under sources of water rather than a small paragraph at the end of the California water plan section.LJw (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Water Sources: Reuse/ Agricultural

I noticed that the sectioned labeled "Reuse" doesn't mention the Orange County Water District's Groundwater Replenishment System. It seems like adding some information regarding that system would make it more robust, as it is an important part of California's water reuse history. One other thing I noticed as I read, was that at the end of the second paragraph of the "Agricultural" section, there is a run-on sentence that may prove to be a bit hard for many people to comprehend. I haven't changed any of the things I mentioned, though, to let you decide if they are good ideas or not. Overall, the page looks great, and I enjoyed the formatting!Phiafornature (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible Section-- Water Pollution?

This article is lacking details about the severe contamination of water found throughout the state, and information about this pollution might help make this article more nuanced in its talk about water. Veena.narashiman (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Groundwater section

I noticed there was a fair amount of information on Groundwater and you mentioned how it's contaminated. Could be beneficial to add projects that are being done to help improve groundwater quality and monitoring. Projects such as GAMA (Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program) would be important to add for they are assessing the problems of groundwater. Otherwise it looks great! Very informative and educational. Laurasurges (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Part of this section mentions the state's absence of any legislation concerning groundwater management. This information may be out of date because the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is legislation intended for California's management of groundwater. It would perhaps enhance this section's accuracy to update the article with mention of this legislation. Warrenbergman (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

California Water Crisis

The state of California is in a water crisis, but what is being done about it? There are many factors involved in causing the crisis, such as, population increases, drought, and an uneven distribution of water. California has a steady growth rate, and by 2030, it is estimated to have approximately 40 million residents. This is forcing water conservation to be a year-round necessity rather than an emergency action in times of drought. Drought and lack of precipitation during the wet seasons is a huge contributor to the crisis. A lack of atmospheric rivers is forcing the states climate to draw precipitation from other sources, mainly the ocean. This is causing the all-around rain level to drop, resulting in reservoirs not filling to their proper capacity. Finally, California’s distribution strategy is suffering. Farmers, who receive approximately 80 percent of California’s water, aren’t getting the supply they need and sometimes resulting in small, family owned farms to close. While companies do exist to try and help with conservation efforts, there hasn’t been a concrete solution. California’s government is also working towards conserving water, but most methods will end up costing billions. It seems that the best Californian’s can do it keep informed and do their part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.113.115.109 (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Climate change water adaptation approaches - Senior Seminar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 3 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wildgooseontheloose (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kirasbeans, Sandro1324, Mattalee.

— Assignment last updated by Wildgooseontheloose (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Warrenbergman (article contribs).

Rain and snowfall

This section briefly mentions a handful of statistics regarding California's precipitation across the state. The source of this information is not made abundantly clear, so it may be beneficial to bolster this section's credibility by including more citations behind these statistics. In addition, this section provides a very broad overview to the state's precipitation. More details could be worth including about variations in precipitation across different regions in California. Warrenbergman (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 20 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oliviascott3 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Am0ria1.

— Assignment last updated by Aksgpp3131 (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Expanding on groundwater in Central Valley

I am going to add a bit about the struggles with arsenic and chromate contamination in the water in Central Valley and how this is disproportionately affecting marginalized communities many times. Oliviascott3 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)