We already reduced the flow of the rivers to a trickle by diverting most of the water for the farmers. Refusing to divert the last trickle and make the river bone dry is not the cause of the problem.

There is a water diversion indeed, to moronic growing of almonds in a desert! Where farmers claim more water 'rights' than physically exists.

It's like you guys looked at the Aral sea disaster created by USSR and said 'hold my beer'

These crops are dead, it's just a question of time, even if you diverted every drop of water and leave households to die. The sooner we accept it the better.

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/006-238/006-238.html

Building households in a desert isn't much better than farming in a desert....

They were diverting water from regular farms in the Sacramento delta to almond farms. The delta farmers were naturally upset.

The diversion was actually being pushed at the federal level, but Sacramento successfully fought back.

Almonds also do not respond well to periods of drought since the trees need to be watered each and every year. Annual crops can be rotated based on water availability.

Humans do not respond well to periods of drought since humans need to drink water each and every day. Camels can be rotated based on water availability.

The water usage of a house in the desert is minuscule compared to a farm in the desert.

The water use of a farm is miniscule compared to a city in the desert.

It seems to me that if you have a new dilemma of choosing to starve A or B of water, that you indeed have a shortage.

Yes, what good is a biosphere when we have strip malls to build in the short term, and the Shangrila of Mars to look forward to colonizing in the long term?

One could claim that the water diverted to those pesky natural habitats would be inconsequential if there were enough for both.