Does anybody have a comic about water conservation?

What will it take to raise the absurdly low cost of water to California farmers to encourage greater conservation?

• Fortune magazine had a recent article on water that looked at the amount of water needed to produce a cheeseburger, including the water needed to produce the individual component. 968 gallons is needed, which would cost $23 at residential rates in Atlanta but only costs $0.39 based on average US agricultural water prices. Given that 70% of water consumption is for agriculture, it seems unfair to directly charge residential users more for water when farmers are paying so little. Of course, we would see increased food prices as the higher cost for irrigation water is passed on but at least the incentives for conservation would be more appropriately distributed. Note that I do also support stronger incentives for residential conservation, including penalties for excessive use.

• Answer:

  California farmers already have to buy water property right along with their land property rights, and which are transferable separately from the land titles, so the mechanisms already exist in California for implementing changes in the price of water faced by farmers.  Only political will, which means overcoming opposition, is necessary.  However, from the farmers' point of view, it is just as reasonable to blame the high water use and waste of urban dwellers for water shortages.  Most of what Californian urban consumers eat is not actually produced in California, and most of what California produces is not consumed in California either.  Beef, chicken and pork are shipped to California from the Midwest, where water consumption may be high, but water is very plentiful and essentially free because it falls as rain and would just wash into the Gulf of Mexico if not used in feed production and meat production by Midwestern farmers first.  California's fruits, nuts, and milk mostly is exported out of the state to consumers who will not pay more for the product if they can consume it from elsewhere anyway.   It is also likely the case that even though California's farmers may use most of the water consumed in the state, this consumption probably has not grown as much as the growing urban population's consumption of water has, so farmers in California may have every reason to argue that it is not them who are providing the marginal pressures on the limited water supply but rather the urban dwellers who arrived long after their farm operations have been on the land and have been already using the water  sustainably.  Since Californians won't have to pay more for their products because most of the products are shipped outside of the state, any major increase in water costs simply closes down lots of California farms. But this is also a problem that is technically (though not politically) solved quite easily by raising the price of water for urban consumers.  At somewhat, but not unreasonably, higher water prices, it would be possible to fund water desalination plants as they do in the Persian Gulf states and completely take much of California's immense urban population off the freshwater grid entirely, ensuring California's dominance as an agricultural producer indefinitely, while also ensuring the survival of fisheries and natural habitats that are currently under threat due to excessive water use by both farms and urban dwellings.