Thanks for the link, Grasa.
A bit of clarification. I don't expect the new groundwater regulation to have any direct affect on me. Perhaps I'll need to install a meter on my small domestic well to prove I'm exempt. My crops are irrigated from riparian (river) sources.
Also, to the best of my recollection, no farmer in the U.S. has been paid not to produce a crop since the 1980s when there was the PIK program, etc. during a time when there were large surpluses of stable commodities. For quite a few years commodity prices have been high and some small floor level subsidies have been paid to farmers, including myself. I think it's pretty silly for the USDA to be doing so, but they keep us under these contracts which we renew each year to remain eligible if commodity prices ever plummet again. The fundamental justification for such programs is to ensure survival of a agricultural sector to provide for the needs of the U.S. population. Last year I was paid about $35/acre for my base acreage (historical wheat and corn acreage). Not enough to get excited about and I have to drive to Sacramento, sign contracts, etc. and agree to conservation requirements and so forth. Maybe 15 years ago I received a larger subsidy when I was growing corn or wheat and prices were low. I am not very familiar with cotton prices in recent years so I can't really comment on the subsidy levels. Subsidy levels are set to provide help when prices are below the cost of production.
As you say, California agriculture feeds much of the nation.
I don't say all of agriculture in California are what I'd call fair players in water use. In the mid-1980s regulations were passed so that low cost federal water projects only went to farmers of relatively modest size, limiting acreage to 640 acres per farmer at the subsidized rates. While 640 acres may seem like a lot of land to many people (1 square mile), it is of a size that is commonly needed to be an economic unit for many commodities because of the high cost of equipment, etc. Who can justify $500,000 of equipment for 100 acres of cotton? Anyways, some large landholders sold off land during the transition period to allow this acreage to continue to receive the low cost federal water. While this could be seen as a good opportunity to allow small and medium size farmers to become established (land had to be sold at non-irrigated land prices), it was greatly abused. Through my prior employment I know of large farms that arranged for non-farmer friends to buy land at the non-irrigated prices with the financial assistance of the larger farmer. In turn, the new landowner leased the land to the large farmer and granted the large farmer the option to purchase the land 10 years later at a pre-determined high price (but still below the value of irrigated farmland). This was entirely legal but obviously not within the spirit of the legislation. The legislation hurt some large landowners and benefited other crafty landowners. I would tend to say that government is probably better at creating problems than fixing them.
One of the largest (if not the largest) farmers in California is Paramount Farms with 72,000 acres, the last I heard. Most people are familiar with their brands of PomWonderful and the Cuties citrus and Wonderful pistachios, almonds, etc. Paramount Farms is part of Stewart and Lynda Resnick's Roll Corporation, a $3 billion entity with a history in bottled water, FTD Floral, Franklin Mint, etc. The same government that is now trying to fix water problems in California crafted regulations that allow Paramount Farms to use government project water to store in aquifers and then they later pump it out and sell it during shortage years at much higher prices. These are the type of companies that should be cut off from any project water, in my opinion. In the meantime, many small and medium-sized farmers are struggling or even going out of business because of a lack of water to irrigate their crops. Partly because of drought but also because of a growing population, lack of new water storage facilities, and environmental priorities. In some instances, large quantities of stored water flowed out to sea this past winter as part of some very silly experiments by the same agencies that will oversee the new laws to help preserve our aquifers. And then, the same governor that signed this legislation has been pushing for a $67 billion twin tunnel project to divert water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta while insisting it won't harm the environmental interests of the Delta. It appears these efforts will likely be defeated as opponents clearly point out that the project would provide no new water, would harm wildlife, and would be a huge cost to taxpayers and water users. I think it's safe to say that I don't have much faith in our government's ability to fix the water problems here.
Sas, if you can find a way to transport your water in a cost-effective manner, I believe Sue would be a ready buyer! :)