That's the point. They didn't for a reason, and then they did and now they don't. But now they don't and people seem to think they should. It's entitlement.
In terms of agriculture....yeah there is some entitlement. While California is strict on water use (with some exceptions I will get to that) for personal residential use farmers are notorious for water waste. We put up with it because farmers wield enormous political power. Farmers scared that trains might scare their dairy cows are leading the charge to try and stop the high speed train.
Do you have a grass lawn?
I have a low water, drought resistant lawn and native plants for the rest of it. Took several years to fully change it over (used to be bluegrass).
Not anymore.
I'm betting they do and for what reason? I don't see how we can talk seriously about "water policy" when people are pouring it on their property for useless aesthetics.
As a point of fact low water landscaping is huge right now. It is required by law for new commercial developments and only a few holdouts in grandfathered HOA's continue to make a fuss in residential areas.
In fact you should read this thread where my mom had to threaten legal action to keep her low-water front yard.
Can you see my point? There's a lingering sense of entitlement, people feel entitled to a house with a nice green lawn even though they live in a desert or an area with depleted natural reserves. This type of thinking is what needs to change first in my opinion.
That thinking changed some time ago for most people.
No you're missing the point. California is over populated because people want to live in that climate.
You really think that? You went out and asked all the people that move here and they told you that they moved because of the climate?
But it's artificial, it's been made liveable and now that it isn't, or can't sustain the population why do we need to build infrastructure instead of saying "Too bad, move to Wisconsin".
I'd hate to break it to you but people require infrastructure everywhere they move. Move 30 million people to Wisconsin and see just how much infrastructure has to be built. Move everyone from the Southwest to the great lakes region and watch how all that "copious water" quickly disappears.
It's proving inefficient and uneconomical to have these large populations in California, and from what I can tell they're really only there because they don't want to be in Green Bay. Something isn't right when a home in say, San Diego is "worth" 5 times more than the same home in Minneapolis. They don't suffer from brown outs and have plenty of water. I'd guess the skin cancer rate is much lower as well. The fact is what is essential to life is probably more abundant in Minneapolis than it is in San Diego and yet the housing costs don't seem to reflect it.
Living in Minneapolis seems to require more energy than living in California.
California has the lowest per capita electricity use of all states at 6,721 kWh per capita. Minnesota comes in at 12,845 kWh per capita.
source
To house all those people there will require twice the electricity.
Then again maybe it isn't. I'm talking out of my ass here so bear with me as I try to make a point.
But there really needs to be some study on sustainability in certain areas so that we can plan our cities more efficiently.
Not a bad idea. I have long advocated for certain things like transit oriented development. But it isn't as easy as just saying "we should be building there and not there."
Someone has to pay for it.
