Hear! Hear! wrote on Sep 27, 2007 10:56 PM:I agree with the farmer! There should be a countywide moratorium on new water hookups for houses and golf courses. I'm tired of "taking the hit" for the growth in this county. Let's make the developers "pay" for the dwindling supply of our resources. Give the infrastructure & our natural resources time to catch up to all the houses & golf courses this county has been inundated with over the last five years. We need a moratorium!

anotherview wrote on Sep 27, 2007 11:16 PM:Why not target present overuse of water by farmers statewide? Please know, dear readers, that farming activity now consumes most of the available state water supply -- about 90 percent of it. Households consume about 5 percent. The rest goes to other users, like industrial and commercial. An analysis with simple math reveals that 5 percent of 90 percent equals 4.5 percent of the whole 100 percent. Hence, forcing farmers statewide to introduce efficient crop irrigation to reduce their water consumption by only 5 percent would nearly match the existing household water use. Via political pressure, however, farmers resist improving their farm irrigation practices. In brief, the Golden State has plenty of water available, but the distribution of this water does not happen rationally. Farmers grab most of the water. So any fair and sound solution to the water supply problem must require farmers statewide to stop using so much water. Then others will have enough water.

To: Hear! Hear! wrote on Sep 28, 2007 12:42 AM:Exactly! Furthermore; It's such a shame that sustanance resources (food)would take such a finacial hit. Drive down Hwy 79 for example, there is 60' of landscaping (deep) on either side of the road. More than Newport Beach! Irrigated daily for plants that aren't native to our area. Just reminders for people to think, "Gee? This is just like San Fransico? We'll order our avocados from Equidor now...."

There is wrote on Sep 28, 2007 12:59 AM:No water shortage. It's a figment of your imagination. It's not getting warmer either.

Howiek wrote on Sep 28, 2007 5:36 AM:One also needs to be cognizant to the fact that while Central Valley/San Joaquin farmers while using large amounts of water they are at the same time producing 80+ percent of the fresh vegetables for the entire U.S.?less water means less production which means higher prices and more imported goods. Of course we could all bury our heads in the sand and believe that this is all a figment of our imagination! It is sure a good thing that I?m not a big fan of avocados?probably go to $5 or $6 a piece. The real shame is that a majority of San Diego County isn?t yet aware of the problem.-

Doug wrote on Sep 28, 2007 6:11 AM:http://geosun.sjsu.edu/~sedlock/Uses.Users.pdf "In 1902, the federal government passed the National Reclamation Act, aimed at building water projects that would deliver irrigation water to small farmers in the West. To ensure that only true family farmers would receive this water, the Act limited to 160 acres the amount of land on which growers could receive federally subsidized water. Over time, the original 160-acre limit for water delivered by the federal government became 960, and many much larger corporate farms began using legal dodges to qualify for "small farm" status under the law. These large farms divide ownership on paper, form trusts, and use other subterfuges to drink up significant amounts of taxpayer-subsidized, below-cost federal water. Many California farmers still pay the government between $2 and $20 per acre-foot for irrigation water -- at little as ten percent of the water's full cost." Are all these farmers "family" farms? I think not.-

Anya wrote on Sep 28, 2007 6:15 AM:Golf courses ect should not be allowed to water their grass, they want it green they can invest in artificial turf, they make enough to afford it. Make gas stations close down their automatic car washes until there is no longer a water crisis, all the little unnecessary things we come to expect day to day should be the first to be forced to cut use. Food is mandatory for human existance, homes and agriculture are the LAST things that should be forced to cut water use.-

John wrote on Sep 28, 2007 6:59 AM:For the past 75 years, water projects subsidized by the Federal Government (aka taxes from the rest of the country) have been keeping water cheaper for farmers than the cost of bringing it here. This has resulted in a complete lack of incentive to build proper irrigation and other efficient use plans.-

Randy wrote on Sep 28, 2007 7:00 AM:Not only should there be a moratorium for hook-ups on new housing and golf courses, there should be a moratorium on building new homes. I am tired of seeing beautiful and once productive agricultural land in Escondido developed into yet another multi-housing monstrosity. Huge recources are being wasted in these mega-complexed housing developments. Electricity consumption is high due to the continual use of lights, a/c and asundry other items. Every house is subject to HOA and MUST maintain their yards which means not only high water usage but also means the use of fertilizers and chemicals. These are going directly into our watershed. The agricultural community has been working very hard to stop a lot of these practices that polluted and wasted so many resources in the past. They are not the ones that should be penalized. Start educating people to understand that food does not grow on the backshelves in the grocery store!-

Fish out of water wrote on Sep 28, 2007 7:06 AM:The Ag-babies need to shut up and put-up. They have been getting discounted water for years with the full understanding that they would be the first hit when a drought occurs. That was the deal and they all flocked to sign up for it...-

Vista Granny wrote on Sep 28, 2007 7:16 AM:It's time to put teeth in the water usage rules. I see people watering the streets for Pete's sake. Keep the dust down, you know! Anyone caught watering their lawns during the heat of the day, or washing down their driveways, etc. should be fined!New homes are okay, but put a moratorium on new lawns for those homes.-

Neighbor wrote on Sep 28, 2007 7:48 AM:I have an aunt near Modesto who has 5 acres of almonds that she can flood irrigate every two weeks for the annual cost of $60. A sweet deal going back many decades. .... Many farmers in that area have converted over to drip irrigation and then take the saved water to former grazing lands to grow new almond orchards. A cut back to them means fewer trees growing.-

Changes in order wrote on Sep 28, 2007 7:50 AM:Before we restrict our farmers from being able to grow our food, we had better put that moratorium on all new housing unless they are not a drain on our water sourses, retro-fit existing homes with the ability to save their non-sewer water and use it for irrigation of their landscaping. How many new projets REQUIRE that people put in complicated drainage systems to carry off all excess water - it goes directly into our sewers. Wasted. The Water Authorities need to come up with incentives for people to re-route their systems and collect water. We should also be building dams and water storage facilities to collect rainfall when it does come, instead of the "stormwater runoff program". Keep the warer. We need it. The farmers need it.-

GFN wrote on Sep 28, 2007 8:03 AM:YOU ARE NEXT!!!!

Warner: wrote on Sep 28, 2007 8:15 AM: Perhaps it would be good to restrict everybody's water use and put a moratorium on all new building which draws more water user to the area - to put it in my last bosses words, "which we don't need no more of." And if the farmers can produce corps with 30% less water they should already be doing it. How dare they waste my water while I have been conserving all along. I called my warer company and ask how I am doing and they tell me I am doing great. Now here the farmers are using 30% to much water...Plans such as flushing on the second brown do not appeal to me. Of course it could be that the water authority knows that is in our future and are just conditioning us for the hard hit. See how they have conditioned me to think about water?-

Concerned-1 wrote on Sep 28, 2007 8:31 AM:Yikes, I knew this issue would bring the draw-bridge mentality to the surface. First of all, the post about water allocation is correct. More than 90 percent of fresh water is used by agriculture. Cutting subsidies to agriculture is the logical place to start. Second, reclamation and recharging facilities should be a priority for water projects. Third, Joe Six Pack needs to stop wasting water with inefficient irrigation systems, and just plain stupidity. We live in a desert! As for the moratorium crowd, I hear there's some nice land with lots of water up in Oregon.-

CA Expatriat wrote on Sep 28, 2007 9:08 AM:In the conspiracy theory department, Randy is on the right track. It is nothing more than an insidious plan to force the farmers out so that the builders can come in and complete the destruction of North County. Builders and the people who govern in this country (read: SANDAG) have all the moral scruples of your average alley cat. Actually, less. Probably on par with your average drug dealer.

Tough Choices wrote on Sep 28, 2007 9:15 AM:Apartment dwellers usually don't have to pay water as a part of their monthly rental fee, water is included in the rent. Because they don't pay for it, their usage for the same square footage as a home is sometimes double or triple with no landscaping or yard to water. Somehow the message to conserve hasn't gotten to those who don't pay for water and maybe the time has come to change that. But if we are coming down to hard choices as to where we allocate water, food should be a higher priority than gold courses, amusement and water parks or new housing developments.

bad idea wrote on Sep 28, 2007 9:22 AM:Typical knee jerk reaction that will put family farms out of business, only to be replaced by unregulated produce from our neighbors to the south. Conservation is good, but should be tempered over time so that farmers can obtain financing to install more efficient irrigation. How are they supposed to get a loan in this market?

golf course wrote on Sep 28, 2007 9:24 AM:As much as I love golf, that speaker has a good point. Golf courses are pretty taxing on our resources and don't exactly contribute to our economy that much.

Don wrote on Sep 28, 2007 10:01 AM:Who are these... [people] who value golf course watering and connection to new, empty homes over irrigation for food? Honestly people food DOES NOT grow in the back of the market! Escondido, from what I heard, used to be the avocado capital of the world. Next time you want that guacamole, think about whether you'd rather have burmuda grass or avocado in it! The farmers have been here for years, they do their best to conserve their water. You don't see broken sprinklers wasting water during a rainstorm in local orchards! Why are those of us who have been water conscience being told we have to cut back while the developers can do whatever they want and waste our resources? Also, why do we have to pay more to have more power stations brought online to power all these "improvements" ? No one is demanding that these developers do anything to conserve any resources. Getting developers to put in a few larger water supply lines and add a few sidewalks is no bargain compared to the drain they are creating on all of our resources!

cts wrote on Sep 28, 2007 10:05 AM:The fact of the matter is EVERYONE needs to conserve water. 30% is going to be required across the board soon enough (you and me included). What is going to piss me off is if SOME are not forced to conserve or we continue to build, build, build.

"Brown" construction needed wrote on Sep 28, 2007 10:47 AM:Yep, we all need to cut back on our water usage now and in the future. Rather than "Green" construction, we need "Brown" construction. I agree with the water cuts to AG; it gives incentives for conserving water to some of the biggest consumers in the state. The building industry should also be hit with restrictions for new construction. Low water use landscapes need to become the norm. Playing fields probably need to be made of fake turf as they are installed.

Former Californian wrote on Sep 28, 2007 10:48 AM:Take photos of the offending addresses watering the street, puddled lawns, etc. Submit the photo to your water agemcies. Let them prosecute the offenders. As for golf courses, you live in a desert. It is irrational to water the desert for grass to play on than to produce food. At some point you need to realize this is driving up the cost of your food. Are you ready to pay for a water pipeline from Alaska?

Environuts wrote on Sep 28, 2007 10:58 AM:and the judge up north should be happy. Drive up the price of food, see how many farmers you can put out of business and how many people get harmed for the Delta Smelt. These are the true terrorists to our economy and growth. When do we stand up to these so called do-gooders? Enough is enough. As they drive their HumVees and SUVs preaching how everyone else should live people are getting hurt. They should take their elitist attitude somewhere else!

Rick wrote on Sep 28, 2007 12:17 PM:San Diego County farmers are and have been good stewards of this precious resource for many years. The price of water ( $650/acre foot and up ) paid by our avocado growers, other orchardists and nurserymen, etc. are absolutely obscene compared with their counterparts in Imperial Valley, where the same acre foot costs approximately $40. Imperial Valley farmers still irrigate as if they were living in the last century. And why not? With such cheap water, what motivation do they have to conserve? In order to use water in the most beneficial way a more equitible system must be found for its distribution, and conservation must be mandatory for all growers. Federal and State funds must be made available for grants and low cost loans to farmers who employ known conservation methods. The crisis is upon us. The time is now for our politicians to act responsibly. Write

Paul wrote on Sep 28, 2007 12:24 PM:You golfers ought to try the course on the Naval base in Guantanamo, Cuba. One big sand trap! The only area they water is the putting greens.

You know wrote on Sep 28, 2007 12:45 PM:how many times I have walked pass homes and businesses having to walk in the street because they are watering the sidewalks more than the lawns? -

We need all wrote on Sep 28, 2007 1:28 PM:The golf courses and green lawns that we can get. Those people have paid their taxes and they can use ALL the resources they want. Gas too. Get over it.

That's right wrote on Sep 28, 2007 1:40 PM:Prosecute the water users. Put them in jail.

Preserve wrote on Sep 28, 2007 1:44 PM:San Diego's agriculture. One of the great beauties of living in North County is the pleasure of still seeing large orange and avocado groves, open meadows where cattle grazing, vineyards, and flower fields. Where else in Southern California except North County San Diego can you still see this? There must be innovative water conservation techniques that help farmers - and keep watering their farms and fields at a very affordable price. Let's help San Diegos farmers and do our part in water conservation as well. How about if the North County Times does a series of stories on innovative water conservation techniques within agriculture? Maybe the County and the USDA could issue grants to famers to help them during this transition? Let's help San Diego's farmers!

Common Sense wrote on Sep 28, 2007 1:54 PM:Gold courses and green lawns are a luxery. Food is a necessity. So why are we hurting the people who produce our food?

ha! wrote on Sep 28, 2007 1:55 PM:I was waiting for someone to bring up the Smelt. Although I don't care about these little fish, I am laughing because people blame this one water source for the issue. Every twenty years or so, SoCal's population starts to overpower the water supply and new sources are brought in: Owen's, Colorado etc and all these new sources do is fool people that we don't live in a desert. So bring in the water, kill the smelt, and then what are we going to do 10 years from now? How about we start conserving, the nkill the smelt when we have done all that we can and it is still need more. It is like people selling their SUVs and complaining about gas prices: "tap the Strategic Reserve! ANWAR!" Then as the prices drop "ok the problem is over, let's get a Humvee" but then there are no more relief sources . . . I have to laugh at the complete lack of collective wisdom of these people. Can anyone say "baaaaaaaaaaaaah"?=

sam wrote on Sep 28, 2007 2:55 PM:Most golf courses use recyled water (I don't golf)so anyone who mentions them should get over that. We will have plenty of water if we get the desal plants going (that the water agencies don't want because they would be operated by a private operator, the agencies know that the private sector would do a better job at getting water than the government)and forget trying to save those stupid worthless fish that is the cause of this water shortage.

Doug wrote on Sep 28, 2007 3:05 PM:20% of california's water is used to grow alfalfa. Personal water use in CA is less than 10% of all the water used. Even If every household cuts its water use in half we will only save less than 5%. Cutting down how much personal water is used is worthless unless the farmers step it up.

Josh wrote on Sep 28, 2007 5:51 PM:Time to include the family farmer on the endangered species list.=

Neighbor wrote on Sep 28, 2007 8:26 PM:The alfalfa farmers are mostly in the very far north (near Oregon) and there are no means in place to transfer the water to the south. When Santa Barbara County had its 8 year drought, builders were required to mitigate 100% of the water needed by their construction.

Bill2 wrote on Sep 29, 2007 1:34 AM:Some writers seem to have no experience with farming. I was involved with maintaining a small avocado orchard for a number of years. Each tree requires a fixed amount of water per week to maintain a saleable product. Cut the water and the fruit does not develop to a marketable size. cut the water supply 30% and it will require the orchard owner to kill 30% of the trees. Is this another ploy by the developers to eliminate farming in this area so they can build more houses on the property formerly used by trees? I remember when this area was covered by orange trees - where are they now? Most of the area where they were located is now covered with houses.

EscondidoGirl wrote on Sep 30, 2007 8:40 PM:I agree with Bill2 that most of us don't really know what kind of water usage is required by a farming enterprise. There is a good chance that developers, and probably the Escondido Council, are hoping to drive out agriculture in favor of more homes and development. I live in the last pocket of county land in Escondido, near Hass Avocado. They are shoehorning in about 75 homes up the street from us, in a plot the size that most local homeowners have used for 1 or 2 homes. Also, Centre City Pkwy is getting more new landscaping in center dividers. The city is already notorious for watering the street, along with the plants, in the existing landscaped dividers. We live in a desert, let's insist on more native plant use and better aimed sprinklers! I think there needs to be a moratorium on new building, not penalties for local farmers! We don't need any more houses here. When the City Council voted to put those homes up the street, it was pointed out that an SD County website had stats proving there were few qualified buyers for new homes. A council member insisted that the construction workers would have plenty of money to purchase the homes they were building. What??!! The City of Escondido needs to worry about the longterm effects on the people who already live and work here, including local agriculture!

RobertM wrote on Oct 4, 2007 12:14 AM:Who do these farmers think they are, anyhow? Why should they get special priviledges? Hardly anyone even lives on farms anymore. Most people live in houses. Maybe the best use of land and water would be to get rid of all these wasteful farms and replace them with houses that pay full price for water without whining about it.

EscondidoGirl wrote on Oct 11, 2007 8:10 AM:Sure, we can get rid of the wasteful agriculture and then we can all go on a diet. What are you planning to eat? Besides it's 'green' to buy from local growers! I'd much rather eat fresh fruit and vegetables than ones trucked across the country. Agriculture feeds people, that's a waste of land and water?-