Any lobbyists or legislators out there? Can we propose a law to tax ag use of water? (Sacramento: 2014, mattresses)

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

I don't know how this works. But, I'm wondering if - just because agribusiness in California may own water rights, which means they can use as much water as they want (or within whatever maximum their old rights say they can use), is there a way to make them help pay for the cost of the drought?

Can we enact a law saying we can tax them for their water usage?

My reason for asking is because the residents of California are paying exorbitant prices for water now. They are also being asked to cut their usage severely. But, if they cut their usage "too" much, they have to pay a surcharge minimum on their water bills.

This seems unfair to me, as it seems to me that this boils down to a subsidy for the ag businesses which use 80 percent of the water in CA.

And supposedly, we can't ask them to use less water, even though the rest of us are being forced to.

So, is there a way to make them pay for their water usage? And to stop the unfair practice of requiring the rest of the citizens of CA to subsidize the drought?

If they don't have to share their water with the rest of the state, then they should have to pay for that privilege. At minimum, the population shouldn't have to pay through the nose for water, based on there being a shortage - when ag continues to use as much as it ever did.

Anybody? Can we do this?

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

I don't know how this works. But, I'm wondering if - just because agribusiness in California may own water rights, which means they can use as much water as they want (or within whatever maximum their old rights say they can use), is there a way to make them help pay for the cost of the drought?

Can we enact a law saying we can tax them for their water usage?

My reason for asking is because the residents of California are paying exorbitant prices for water now. They are also being asked to cut their usage severely. But, if they cut their usage "too" much, they have to pay a surcharge minimum on their water bills.

This seems unfair to me, as it seems to me that this boils down to a subsidy for the ag businesses which use 80 percent of the water in CA.

And supposedly, we can't ask them to use less water, even though the rest of us are being forced to.

So, is there a way to make them pay for their water usage? And to stop the unfair practice of requiring the rest of the citizens of CA to subsidize the drought?

If they don't have to share their water with the rest of the state, then they should have to pay for that privilege. At minimum, the population shouldn't have to pay through the nose for water, based on there being a shortage - when ag continues to use as much as it ever did.

Anybody? Can we do this?

It might be possible,but where would the money come from. You and everyone would pay more for the crops, sooo prepare to open your wallet further as AG business make their money from ... you.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by expatCA

It might be possible,but where would the money come from. You and everyone would pay more for the crops, sooo prepare to open your wallet further as AG business make their money from ... you.

Ahhh, but would we really? If most of the crops go to Japan?

I'm happy with veggies from Chile.

[Tulemutt]

Couple quick things. Not meant to object to the spirit of your thread but:

Farmers do not use 80%. The figures are closer to about 43% for farmers, 11% for urban and business, and 46% remains in critical environmental flow.

And what crops go to Japan?

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Couple quick things. Not meant to object to the spirit of your thread but:

Farmers do not use 80%. The figures are closer to about 43% for farmers, 11% for urban and business, and 46% remains in critical environmental flow.

And what crops go to Japan?

Well, of the water used for farming and urban and business, your figure shows farming to be 80% of it. I don't think we can count the water in the rivers as being "used" by Californians. Although, arguably, the fish are Californians?

The rice and almonds go to Japan for the most part, as I understand it. I know that when I worked at a rice mill in Woodland many years ago, a good portion of the rice milled there was sold to Japanese buyers, and at the time, this was a new venture, as Japanese were generally not into eating medium grain rice, but the Japanese promoters were changing that perception. That was mid 1990's.

It's my understanding that's also the case for almonds. That most of the almonds grown in CA are sold to Japan.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

But, back to my question, is it possible to tax water usage? Just because someone has a water right, does that exempt them from a new tax on water usage?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Well, of the water used for farming and urban and business, your figure shows farming to be 80% of it. I don't think we can count the water in the rivers as being "used" by Californians. Although, arguably, the fish are Californians?

The rice and almonds go to Japan for the most part, as I understand it. I know that when I worked at a rice mill in Woodland many years ago, a good portion of the rice milled there was sold to Japanese buyers, and at the time, this was a new venture, as Japanese were generally not into eating medium grain rice, but the Japanese promoters were changing that perception. That was mid 1990's.

It's my understanding that's also the case for almonds. That most of the almonds grown in CA are sold to Japan.

The 80% figure is misleading. Environmental flow is critical to all Californians. Farming uses 43% of state water. That's a lot. But using the 80% of non-environmental flow is a specious use of statistics, IMO.

As for rice and almonds:

About 80% of almonds are exported. Number one almond buyer is China. Almonds suck up the second highest amount of state ag water.

Rice exports run approximately 1/3 (abroad) and 50% total exported (foreign and domestic to other states). Some info on rice:

Less than one-third of California's rice production is sold abroad,
California Agriculture Online

California grows most of the country's medium-grain rice. It also grows most of the short-grain rice used for sushi in the U.S. The state exports about half of its crop, mostly to Asia, and employs around 25,000 people.
California rice farmer: Drought may make us 'quit and sell'

Alfalfa is the state's number 1 user of ag water. And alfalfa is exported out of state in majority.

Now, back to rice again for a minute. The water for most California rice production is at the end of its useful flow through the Delta. Those rice paddies are flooded only 5" deep with water which next stop is mixing with salt water of the Bay. So it's not being stolen from any other potential use. It is just about to be lost to human use. That said, those rice farmers mostly are subject to water district allocations, and those allocations have been cut these last two seasons so rice production has been cut back 25%. The paddies are carved out of non-perking soil with lots of clay base. The land is suitable for nothing else. Most crops won't grow there. You can't develop housing or industry there either. Rice is an excellent use for the location and water that is about to flow to no further use.

You should leave rice farming out of the protest. It's really not a guilty party at all. It takes nothing from supply or other use. Well over half of production is used domestically. Including 100% of all the rice used in that delicious sushi you buy all over the state.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Ah, sorry, China not Japan then. I should have said Asia.

The arguments regarding the other stuff has been hashed and rehashed and I disagree with you that water that floods a rice paddy couldn't be sent somewhere other than the Delta or the ocean.

And by the way, how many gallons does it take to flood hundreds, thousands? of acres with 5 inches of water?

But, I'm really hoping someone will answer my question regarding the ability to create a new tax or fee on water usage by people who own water rights. A new spin on the debate.

[Carlyee3]

NoMoreSnowForMe

I don't think you know how water law and water supplies work in the west? It would take too long to prove all I am about to say, but there are several main items you have wrong or greatly misconceived.

Western water law allows those who first developed the irrigation systems to claim certain amounts of water based on acreage serviced. They paid and built the systems: canals, dams, etc.. As part of the laws, they need to use the water in a beneficial manner. Since it is a trust resource, there was no provision to charge for water, since when the laws were written, the country need those systems to be developed. You just had to use it well/beneficially.Later users on a stream became junior users and their rights could be cut off first in low water years.Cities often fall into the lowest seniority since they were last in time to apply for an allocation.

Somewhere you must be operating on the assumption that farmers aren't sacrificing? Go down into the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys and look at the number of acres of fallowed land this year. Most of them will not get their full allocation this year regardless how senior their rights.

In CA there are two other sources of water, the CA Project (e.g-Oroville) and the Federal Projects (e.g.-Shasta). That water is apportioned and sold to the various Irrigation districts. Here, the water is allocated and paid for by acre foot. so these farmers are already paying for the water based on amortization rates computed when those systems were built and adjusted for inflation.

As for cities, they have always been last in seniority and most of the cost you are paying is not for the water, but for the purification and delivery of the water. Those water districts have to pay off bonds based on current income, so that is why your rates go up. There is some pay tiering going on to force conservation, but since cities are lowest seniority (usually), they either conserve or get cut off first.

Besides would taxing farmers make more runoff? No. Cities can buy water from farmers if the price is right, that is happening in AZ.

You also seem to feel we shouldn't be selling produce and ag products to anyone else? Actually, we are pretty lucky to be able to sell them things they want to pay for all those TVs and cars we use. They aren't stock piling those dollar bills just to stuff their mattresses.

Pray for a strong El Nino this winter.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Ah, sorry, China not Japan then. I should have said Asia.

The arguments regarding the other stuff has been hashed and rehashed and I disagree with you that water that floods a rice paddy couldn't be sent somewhere other than the Delta or the ocean.

And by the way, how many gallons does it take to flood hundreds, thousands? of acres with 5 inches of water?

But, I'm really hoping someone will answer my question regarding the ability to create a new tax or fee on water usage by people who own water rights. A new spin on the debate.

Yes Asia

And yes, of course, rice paddy water could be sent somewhere else besides the ocean. But it isn't being done now. And would require yet another huge infrastructure project / expense. But here's the other thing about that very point: much of that rice water is redirected back into the delta flow. So it could still be repurposed. You've got a thing about rice farmers I guess. But one size doesn't fit all. They should be taken out of the protest equation.

Meanwhile, the almond growers continue to expand their crop even while draining aquifers and the water used can't be recaptured and repurposed.

As to "eminent domain". Whoa. E.D. (No, not the kind people use the little blue pills to compensate for) requires the government to pay a "fair market value". To seize the water / land however you want to look at it, would end up in one of the nation's most insane and lengthy court battles ever I'd guess, trying to determine "fair market value".

As for the taxation: the history of civilization has proven one thing above all others: anything can be taxed