Mythbusting California Water
Myth: Agriculture’s water consumption is moderate and sustainable.
Agriculture consumes about 80% of California’s developed water – that is, water that is collected and conveyed by federal, state, regional or municipal agencies. Urban use – homes, commercial enterprises, and industrial processes – accounts for about 20%.[1] . Additionally, agriculture uses vast quantities of California’s groundwater; fully 40% of agricultural needs are met through subterranean sources.[2] This has led to widespread aquifer overdraft, threatening community access to drinking water, reducing river flows, impairing groundwater quality, and causing major ground subsidence in the Central Valley and portions of coastal California.[3]
Myth: Agriculture is a major contributor to California’s economy.
In the 1960s, agriculture comprised about 5% of California’s GDP. Today, that figure has fallen to about 2%. Crop cash receipts in 2024 were $246 billion, a decrease of $25 billion from 2023. Also, the type of crops that are grown in the state has shifted over the decades, from commodity staples such as processing tomatoes, cotton and hay to high-value export crops typified by almonds and pistachios.[4] Today, nut crops alone take about 20% of California’s developed water. Though they are decreasing in scale compared to other agricultural sectors, California’s beef and dairy industries remain relatively robust and account for considerable water consumption. The state’s 1.7 million dairy cattle, for example, use more than 140 million gallons of water daily. [5]
Myth: California agriculture is essential to national food security.
The amount of water California agriculture uses doesn’t correlate with enhanced food security. The fresh fruits and vegetables produced in California are important for healthy diets and complement staples such as grains and beans grown elsewhere; but tree nuts and livestock finished in feedlots or raised in “factory” facilities require far more water than fruits and vegetables. Moreover, almost 45% of all California agricultural products are exported to foreign buyers – a production-to-trade ratio that is growing.[6] In sum, California agriculture could contribute to food security and population health with far less water than it uses now. The excess use of water by agribusiness is a function of political power and greed that benefits a handful of corporate growers and penalizes ratepayers, small farmers and the environment.
Myth: New dams will solve California’s water crisis.
The most salient argument against building more dams is the simple fact that virtually all of California’s major rivers already have been dammed. More than 1,400 dams are operating in the state,[7]and there are very few places where new dams could be constructed. Two that are proposed by agribusiness interests are Sites Reservoir[8] west of Colusa and Temperance Flat Reservoir[9]on the San Joaquin River. Both have serious deficits that militate against construction. Sites would be an “offsite” reservoir that would be filled by conveying water from the Sacramento River. Sites promoters have mischaracterized this plan by implying water would only be taken from the river during high water events in extremely wet years. But water would be used to fill Sites during most years – including dry and critically dry years, when about 100,000 acre-feet annually would be diverted on average.[10] Such diversions would have devastating effects on Sacramento River system salmon and other native species.[11]
Further, much of the water held in Sites would be lost to evaporation because of its shallow depth and expansive surface area. The collected water would also degrade Sacramento River / Delta water quality when it was released from spring through fall for irrigation.[12] Because Sites would be a broad, shallow reservoir exposed directly to the sun, the water will be warm when released, further imperiling salmon through high temperatures and toxic algae blooms. It will also be heavily infused with mercury from regional cinnabar deposits, threatening human health and wildlife.[13]
Temperance Flat is also hobbled by major downsides. The proposed reservoir would submerge a spectacular gorge that is recommended for federal Wild and Scenic protections while providing only about 70,000 acre-feet of water in most years – less than 0.2% of California's annual water use. [14]
Both projects would be ruinously expensive. The “official” cost estimate for Sites is $4.4 billion;[15] Temperance Flat is estimated at $2.6 billion.[16] Those are stunning price tags by any evaluation, but it’s axiomatic that initial cost estimates for large California public works projects are invariably low – often delusionally low. The cost for the new span of the San Francisco Bay Bridge originally was estimated at $2.5 billion. It was finally completed for $6.5 billion.[17] Expect similar price inflation for Sites, Temperance Flat or any other reservoir proposed by the Trump or Newsom administrations.
Myth: Freshwater that flows from rivers and estuaries is “wasted to the sea.”
Freshwater “through flows” are essential for maintaining healthy ecosystems, water quality, and fisheries.[18] Brackish water systems – the kind characterized by freshwater mixing with seawater in estuaries, deltas and bays – are biologically rich, and dramatically more productive than systems characterized solely by either freshwater or saltwater.[19] Further, brackish systems serve as essential nurseries and foraging grounds for a wide variety of both freshwater and saltwater species. Without ample freshwater flows, our aquatic ecosystems – from headwaters to the ocean – diminish, and the species they support perish.
Robust flows are also necessary for removing pollutants from our rivers and wetlands and preventing saltwater intrusion into surface and subterranean domestic water sources.[20] Nor can the economic impact of freshwater flows be minimized. Healthy estuaries, rivers, and fish populations support valuable commercial and sport fisheries. California’s salmon once sustained fishing, processing, and retail industries worth hundreds of millions of dollars.[21] With the proper programs – most notably, more water through the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta – we can reclaim this devastated economic sector.
Myth: The Delta Tunnel is necessary for meeting California’s water needs.
The Delta Tunnel is Governor Newsom’s retread of former Governor Jerry Brown’s debunked “Peripheral Canal.” It is a massive boondoggle that will produce no new water, deliver little or no water during drought or even dry years, disrupt land and infrastructure, harm Delta ecosystems, soak taxpayers, and burden ratepayers with billions of dollars in new debt.[22] What it WILL do is subsidize water deliveries to San Joaquin Valley agribusiness and provide unnecessarily expensive water to Southern California communities, further straining household budgets already hammered by inflation. Moreover, with rational and sustainable alternative strategies, there is adequate water for the business development and growth needed to propel Southern California’s economy through the coming century.
Massive, centralized water projects are an antiquated and bankrupt approach to water security that should be relegated to the dustbin of history. The 21st Century demands 21st Century solutions to our water problems – and that translates to a multiplex, decentralized and resilient strategy that emphasizes conservation, stormwater capture, recycling, aquifer recharge, development of local sources, and limited desalinization.[23]
Myth: The State should override existing environmental water policy to benefit growers.
Waivers that curtail environmental flows are increasingly – and improperly – used by the state to circumvent established law for the benefit of Central Valley agriculture. Known as Temporary Urgency Change Petitions (TUCPs), these State Water Resources Control Board actions were originally conceived as emergency measures for safeguarding water supplies during extreme drought. Instead, they have become a pro forma means for maximizing water deliveries to large Central Valley agricultural operations at the expense of ratepayers, fisheries and small Delta farmers. This was made abundantly clear in the exceptionally wet year of 2023, when Governor Newsom sought a TUCP to reduce protective fishery flows – even though there was more than enough water in the system for salmon. [24] State oversight of our water is needed, but water policies mustn’t skew toward corporate power, penalizing ratepayers and taxpayers and depleting the water we hold in common.
Myth: Urban Ratepayers should shoulder most of the water conservation burden.
Water conservation by urban ratepayers has been one of the state’s greatest success stories – but the cities aren’t where real water savings lie, given urban areas and industry only consume 20% of the state’s developed water. Southern California residents have reduced their per-capita consumption of potable water by 45% since 1990. In the 2023 -2024 fiscal year, South State residents marked a record low in water consumption: 114 gallons per capita per day, compared to 209 GPCD in 1990.[25]
During this time, however, corporate agriculture continued to guzzle water, and the State did little to moderate its consumption. Indeed, agriculture opted for crops that are particularly water intensive during this three-decade period. Thirsty orchard crops including almonds and pistachios displaced row crops such as processing tomatoes over vast swathes of the Central Valley.[26] The rationale for the switch was understandable: nuts are more profitable than tomatoes, especially for the export markets that take most of the production.
But ratepayers and taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize wealthy private businesses – especially with their water, and especially when they are required to dig up their lawns, forego gardens, and take five-minute showers to conserve supplies.
Further, urban conservation doesn’t save much water compared to the potential for agricultural conservation. As noted, agriculture uses 80% of the state’s developed water, and a significant share irrigates so-called “impaired” soils in the San Joaquin Valley. These lands are infused with naturally occurring toxic selenium and are irrigated with relatively saline water imported from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. As crops are irrigated, salt concentrates around the root zones, requiring periodic flushing with still more water. But along with the salt, the resulting tailwater transports large quantities of dissolved selenium, polluting waterways and endangering people, fish and wildlife. This cycle is repeated each year, with the land ultimately becoming too waterlogged and salt-laden to remain profitable for farming.[27]
As a result, land is coming out of production in the western San Joaquin Valley. By simply accelerating the land retirement schedule, the State would save a vast amount of water. As determined by the Pacific Institute, permanently retiring 1.3 million acres of the San Joaquin Valley’s drainage-impaired lands would save 3.9-million-acre feet of water each year.[28] Given that the City of Los Angeles only uses about 500,000 acre feet of water annually,[29] it’s clear that any aggressive San Joaquin Valley cropland retirement program would yield enough water to completely negate the need for additional urban conservation.
[1] https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC-Website/Files/Documents/2019/06_June/June2019_Item_12_Attach_2_PPICFactSheets.pdf
[2] https://www.ppic.org/publication/groundwater-in-california/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20groundwater%20basins%20provide,salt%20or%20contaminants%20in%20groundwater.
[3] https://www.ppic.org/publication/groundwater-in-california/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20groundwater%20basins%20provide,salt%20or%20contaminants%20in%20groundwater.
[4] https://californiaagtoday.com/2024-farm-sector-income-forecast/
[5] https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2022/02/24/california-water/
[6] https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/giannini_public/83/a0/83a0a220-ecb3-45ca-83e3-69fdd8443a43/international_trade__california_agriculture.pdf
[7] https://www.watereducation.org/topic-list-dams-reservoirs-and-water-projects#:~:text=California%20has%20more%20than%201%2C400,federal%2C%20state%20and%20local%20agencies.
[8] https://sitesproject.org/
[9] https://cwc.ca.gov/Water-Storage/WSIP-Project-Review-Portal/All-Projects/Temperance-Flat-Reservoir-Project
[10] https://www.nrdc.org/bio/doug-obegi/why-nrdc-opposes-proposed-sites-reservoir
[11]https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/08/sites-reservoir-dam-project-water/
[12] Ibid
[13] https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/04/24/public-money-for-private-benefits-sites-reservoir-is-a-classic-boondoggle/
[14] https://www.friendsoftheriver.org/our-work/rivers-under-threat/san-joaquin-threat/
[15] https://cvfpb.ca.gov/news/unlocking-californias-4-4-billion-water-solution-when-will-sites-reservoir-finally-be-completed/
[16] https://www.friendsoftheriver.org/our-work/rivers-under-threat/san-joaquin-threat/
[17] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-13/how-the-cost-of-remaking-the-san-francisco-bay-bridge-soared-to-6-5-billion
[18] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-01-23/skelton-water-capture-myth-california#:~:text=But%20%E2%80%9Cwasted%20water%E2%80%9D%20is%20a,it%20deposits%20sand%20on%20beaches.
[19] https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/where-the-rivers-meet-the-sea/#:~:text=Not%20all%20rivers%20end%20as,some%20of%20the%20most%20vulnerable.
[20] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-01-23/skelton-water-capture-myth-california#:~:text=But%20%E2%80%9Cwasted%20water%E2%80%9D%20is%20a,it%20deposits%20sand%20on%20beaches
[21] https://fishbio.com/value-california-salmon/
[22] https://savethedelta.saccounty.gov/Documents/DeltaTunnelMythsandFacts.pdf
[23] https://www.governing.com/infrastructure/despite-opposition-newsom-advances-delta-tunnel-project
[24] https://calmatters.org/environment/2023/02/newsom-environmental-laws-store-more-delta-water/
[25]https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/southern-california/environment/2025/01/30/per-person-water-use-socal#:~:text=LOS%20ANGELES%20%E2%80%94%20Southern%20California%20residents,a%20state%20agency%20announced%20Thursday.
[26] https://mjdoamag.com/the-dynamic-and-evolving-california-tree-nut-industry/?srsltid=AfmBOoq-U8BgCV_XtTA5m-1zx_PdF4r66ZYj0SNqB4iQBPG_p9QqRVpa
[27] https://ponce.sdsu.edu/the_facts_about_san_joaquin_valley_drainage.html
[28] https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/online/deep-dive-californias-recurring-drought-problem/
[29] https://cleanwater.org/releases/analysis-state-water-boards-proposal-water-down-urban-water-conservation-regulation-leaves#:~:text=For%20context%2C%20the%20City%20of,to%20come%2C%E2%80%9D%20added%20Cooley.