Another reason NOT to use the "Water Thief"

Out of curiosity, what are the CA farmers paying for water?

Also does Canada have excess water to be sent to CA?, and would they be willing to part with it?

A lot of the water CA uses comes from the mountain west states by way of the Colorado river, which has been over promised.

The states the receive your fruits, vegetable, and meat return the water used in the form of money. How that gets spent is for CA to decide.

I wonder if the farmers would object to being told what crops they could grow and how much profit they could expect.

CarlGeo wrote:
Farmers in California pay a very high price for water - EVERY year.

How much per gallon?

We bought (for the first time in decades) thousands of gallons of water for our residence this summer ... some of it at around 8 cents per gallon and some of it at around 7.2 cents per gallon. I'll bet CA farmers didn't pay anywhere near this ... nor should they, necessarily ... depending upon how bad the drought is/gets. But they should be paying way up there in $$$ over the good old days - unless some of the states that are close to CA to the north and northeast belly up to the bar and supply CA farmers with gobbs of cheap water so the stores in those states can continue to sell CA produce.

Ever travel to Oregon, Washington, Idaho, etc. and see all the green lawns up there and then go into their grocery stores and see how much produce is from CA because their growing seasons are so much shorter?

A long time ago we quit washing our cars at home or taking showers very long or very often at home, and we let our lawn of 30 years die this summer. I hope our farmer families are doing the same.

toedtoes wrote:

pnichols wrote:

toedtoes wrote:
I'm not saying we can't enjoy our RVs, but rather before deciding to drive away from your home with an empty tank - THINK. Does your destination have enough water to support your RV? Where is that water coming from? Increasing your gas mileage by 3mpg does NOT justify denying others the right to water.

For our personal RV'ing habits, like I posted above earlier, we never leave home in our RV without first filling up our fresh water tank with are precious summertime residence water ... which this summer we paid around 7.5 cents per gallon for ... since we had to buy water due to a nearly dried up well/spring system.

I still think CA farming is unfairly using too much water so farmers can make a profit. I admit that of course a business must make a profit, but farmers should pay a high price for their water in a drought year - just like I had to for our trucked in water this past summer. Yes, food from CA farmers would then cost more - so be it. I believe that's called "all of us together sharing in the drought pain".


Really .... 3 MPG RV mileage increase due to less water weight?? I think not. Sounds like very suspicious smoke-and-mirrors math to me. Do these same kind of folks also travel with only a 1/4 full fuel tank on average so they get better MPG? :h

I don't totally disagree with you. I just think that in regards to the agriculture aspect that it's not a simple solution.

I created the 3mpg number. No one ever seems to actually say how much gas mileage they save, but many use the "improved gas mileage" as an excuse to fill up at the parks (against rules or not). I suspect it's a preconceived belief that doesn't really equate in real life - sort of like a co-worker's belief that the car AC drops her gas mileage (in a 2012 vehicle) significantly.

Farmers in California pay a very high price for water - EVERY year. However, in years of drought they often get but 20% of the water they pay for, and sometimes even less than the stated amount. Such is the case in 2014.
PS: I am NOT a farmer and neither is my family!

I would definitely agree that the type of crop should have a bearing on the water use.

I'd hate to go back to the days of scurvy and oranges as an expensive treat. But, if the crop can be grown elsewhere without problem, then we shouldn't be shifting water to support those crops here.

Shearwater wrote:
However, it does not make sense to me that crops like alfalfa, wheat, hay and other crops that can easily be grown elsewhere should have the same water rights that the high value crops enjoy. It is not a good use of limited resources.

X2. That's an outstanding observation and implied suggestion!

I had some additional thoughts this morning: How about a pipeline from Canada to the entire CA central valley agricultural area to supply agricultural water there (not for domestic use). This water would not be "free" to the farmers there by any stretch ... they would have to be surcharged over 30 years to pay part (who would pay the rest?) of the capital cost for the pipeline and of course pay in real time a low-as-possible price per acre foot for their agricultural water, plus pay in real time for maintenance of the pipeline. This pipeline would offer the dual advantages of 1) water priced low enough so food stuffs from the CA central valley would only have to be a little higher as a result and, 2) significantly relieve many other CA water sources from the heavy burden of also supplying CA agricultural water.

If they can build a pipeline from Canada to Texas for oil, they should be able to build a pipeline from Canada to CA for U.S. consumed and exported CA-grown foodstuffs. Of course, the areas in Canada giving up their excess water to feed the pipeline must get a fair per acre foot price for their water and their affected communities must benefit from these water sales.

Basically what would be happening is the optimizing of the growing of food for the benefit of all by getting water from where there's more than the area needs and moving it to where the food growing conditions are good. The end result being plenty of food stuff still coming from CA, but priced a bit higher for all using it ... due to CA drought conditions.

The only problem remaining would be how to maintain Canada's water income from this during years when CA was not in a drought .... which may become less and less moving forward.

I certainly agree with toedtoes about the value of California's agricultural products. They produce crops there that cannot be grown effectively anywhere else in the country.

However, it does not make sense to me that crops like alfalfa, wheat, hay and other crops that can easily be grown elsewhere should have the same water rights that the high value crops enjoy. It is not a good use of limited resources.

pnichols wrote:

toedtoes wrote:
I'm not saying we can't enjoy our RVs, but rather before deciding to drive away from your home with an empty tank - THINK. Does your destination have enough water to support your RV? Where is that water coming from? Increasing your gas mileage by 3mpg does NOT justify denying others the right to water.

For our personal RV'ing habits, like I posted above earlier, we never leave home in our RV without first filling up our fresh water tank with are precious summertime residence water ... which this summer we paid around 7.5 cents per gallon for ... since we had to buy water due to a nearly dried up well/spring system.

I still think CA farming is unfairly using too much water so farmers can make a profit. I admit that of course a business must make a profit, but farmers should pay a high price for their water in a drought year - just like I had to for our trucked in water this past summer. Yes, food from CA farmers would then cost more - so be it. I believe that's called "all of us together sharing in the drought pain".


Really .... 3 MPG RV mileage increase due to less water weight?? I think not. Sounds like very suspicious smoke-and-mirrors math to me. Do these same kind of folks also travel with only a 1/4 full fuel tank on average so they get better MPG? :h

I don't totally disagree with you. I just think that in regards to the agriculture aspect that it's not a simple solution.

I created the 3mpg number. No one ever seems to actually say how much gas mileage they save, but many use the "improved gas mileage" as an excuse to fill up at the parks (against rules or not). I suspect it's a preconceived belief that doesn't really equate in real life - sort of like a co-worker's belief that the car AC drops her gas mileage (in a 2012 vehicle) significantly.

toedtoes wrote:
I'm not saying we can't enjoy our RVs, but rather before deciding to drive away from your home with an empty tank - THINK. Does your destination have enough water to support your RV? Where is that water coming from? Increasing your gas mileage by 3mpg does NOT justify denying others the right to water.

For our personal RV'ing habits, like I posted above earlier, we never leave home in our RV without first filling up our fresh water tank with are precious summertime residence water ... which this summer we paid around 7.5 cents per gallon for ... since we had to buy water due to a nearly dried up well/spring system.

I still think CA farming is unfairly using too much water so farmers can make a profit. I admit that of course a business must make a profit, but farmers should pay a high price for their water in a drought year - just like I had to for our trucked in water this past summer. Yes, food from CA farmers would then cost more - so be it. I believe that's called "all of us together sharing in the drought pain".


Really .... 3 MPG RV mileage increase due to less water weight?? I think not. Sounds like very suspicious smoke-and-mirrors math to me. Do these same kind of folks also travel with only a 1/4 full fuel tank on average so they get better MPG? :h

Interesting thought.
Since much of the water in the Columbia River drainage and the Mississippi River drainage comes from Montana and Idaho, perhaps we should feel the same.
Not to mention our (along with neighboring states) coal and oil.
And our sugar beets.
and our wheat and barley.
and our alfalfa and timothy hay.
and our platinum and palladium.
and our big game out-of-state tags.
We can stop growing (and exporting) some crops, and plant vegetables to feed ourselves instead.
BUT, the name of the game for farmers is PROFIT, just like any other business. When the profit stops, the business stops, whether it be ag business or manufacturing. If ag business stops, we starve.
As always, be very careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Oh, and toedtoes, you were typing while I was, and you are absolutely right!

I might agree with you if there was a viable way to move the excess water from those other states to California. But there isn't such a way. We're benefiting from those same exact food sources - it's not like we're starving our own children to feed the neighbor's children. Those other states sacrifice in different ways - there is no single state that is perfect. I don't expect other states to throw away potable water in order to "share our sacrifice" - just like I don't turn off my heat when the Northeast is in a 2 week blizzard.

As for the sacrifice of "RV water use", that's my point. We have a large amount of RVers right here in California who are NOT sacrificing - they are using water meant to be shared by the entire community for their own personal purposes because they refuse to fill up at home (where they have to pay for their water). They are taking advantage of a situation and hurting others. Last spring, I visited a State Park - the camp hosts had just arrived from their prior full-timing location. The first thing they did was to wash their 35+ foot rig using the limited water from the campground. Campers were instructed to bring water with them because there wasn't enough available at the campground, but the hosts were washing their RV. I'm sorry - that's not right. We Californian RVers need to stop thinking that our conservation efforts stop at our intake connection - every gallon of water we put into our tanks is water being taken away from other people.

I'm not saying we can't enjoy our RVs, but rather before deciding to drive away from your home with an empty tank - THINK. Does your destination have enough water to support your RV? Where is that water coming from? Increasing your gas mileage by 3mpg does NOT justify denying others the right to water.