I think we can reasonably draw a distinction between almonds and alfalfa. Almonds are a high-value crop; if farmers had to pay more for water, they would still grow almonds, earning money that helps bolster the state's economy. Alfalfa, on the other hand, is a low-value crop, arguably worth less than the true value of the water used to grow it. And much of California's alfalfa is shipped to China. We may as well be exporting water to China at a discount!

EDITED to add: while alfalfa exports to China have been increasing in recent years, we ship to several Far East countries, and the largest consumer, by a bit, is still Japan. See graph near the end of [0].

Actually, if anything, I think the distinction is unfair in the other direction. Alfalfa is a lower value crop than almonds, true. However, as an annual, alfalfa comes to maturity relatively quickly, and doesn't require much in the way of ongoing water. As a farmer, if I plant alfalfa this year, it's very easy for me to sell the alfalfa and switch to something else next year when water prices go up.

Almond trees, on the other hand, require three to four years of water before they become mature enough to produce fruit. That means, as a farmer, if I choose to plant almonds, I'm locked in for the better part of a decade before I can recoup my investment. And yet, somehow, even in the middle of the longest running and most severe drought in California history, I read reports of farmers planting new almond trees, knowing full well that those trees are going to be sucking water for three to four years before they get even a single harvest. That's how confident these farmers are that the state of California is going bail them out with multi-billion dollar public works projects. And that's why I have no sympathy for them.

Planting almond trees now doesn't necessarily require confidence that the state is going to bail them out. Because almonds are a high-value crop, even significant increases in the price of water will not make them uneconomic to grow.

I think we agree that farmers should be paying more for water in any case. Alas, the Rube Goldberg-esque legal structure that's grown up around water rights since the 1800s makes this much harder to implement than it should be -- and that is the real problem.

Alfalfa isn't an annual though. It's a perennial.

It is more a problem with the meat industry. Growing feed for animals and then eating their flesh instead of just growing food.

It isn't. The problem in California isn't due to grains, which are annual crops. The problem is due to farmers planting water-hungry perennial tree crops, like almonds. The problem with perennials is that they take three to four years of constant reliable water to grow properly and produce crops. Somehow, in the middle of the largest drought in California history, you have farmers who believe that it's all right to plant crops that require years of water before they become profitable. That's the core of California's water problem, and why I have very little sympathy for California's current plight.

No, amalag is right. Meat is a much bigger problem than almonds. [0] [1]

[0] http://gizmodo.com/seriously-stop-demonizing-almonds-1696065...

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-muc...

Curious about the downvote. I've heard this argument before -- what's the problem with it?