Wet Work

May 11, 2024 1:15 AM

In a state with prolonged bouts of drought and unquenching thirst, stolen water is an indelible part of California lore. But this was not Los Angeles’ brazen gambit to take water from the Owens Valley. Or San Francisco’s ploy to flood part of Yosemite National Park for a reservoir. The water grab described in a federal indictment allegedly happened cat burglar-style, siphoned through a secret pipe, often after hours, to avoid detection. from Feds say he masterminded an epic California water heist. Some farmers say he’s their Robin Hood [LA Times; ungated]
posted by chavenet (23 comments total)

California water and agriculture need a reset. Charge farmers and city dwellers the same water rates.
posted by pracowity at 5:27 AM on May 11 [12 favorites]

Growing a plurality/majority of the nations vegetables in a region famous for droughts and wildfires has always seemed a bad notion. The story of this nation has largely been one of agriculture, and depending on food grown on drying aquifers will eventually have consequences. The selenium rich run off is not a good sign.
posted by ockmockbock at 6:41 AM on May 11 [12 favorites]

Tnx for posting -- crazy story. For a deep dive into this subject I highly recommend "Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water" by Marc Reisner. It's an incredible book about the history of California's water development and staggering levels of corruption, incompetence, and waste.

Of course, "Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown" kinda sums it all up.
posted by Dean358 at 6:55 AM on May 11 [11 favorites]

Growing a plurality/majority of the nations vegetables in a region famous for droughts and wildfires has always seemed a bad notion.

Farms were introduced in this area because the water could be controlled from the rivers. Droughts are fine as long as the rivers flow. The Midwest US is too extreme weather wise.
posted by waving at 7:45 AM on May 11 [4 favorites]

Water rights have always been weird. Really weird. Anyone steeped in CA central valley lore knows this quite well and is well aware how much sausage can be made from sunny California produce.

Growing a plurality/majority of the nations vegetables in a region famous for droughts and wildfires has always seemed a bad notion. The story of this nation has largely been one of agriculture, and depending on food grown on drying aquifers will eventually have consequences. The selenium rich run off is not a good sign.


This might seem like a wise idea, but it means that alternative farmlands capable of being as productive should be developed. It's too broad and non specific to be a useful idea. Got any land to sell? Lots of land with naturally replenishing water, fertile soils, exceptional climate and predictable weather patterns. Believe it or not, that kinda describes California more than most of the country, for well over a century, and still does. Wanting some alternatives might be wise, but is going to take lots of hard work with lots of risk.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:51 AM on May 11 [7 favorites]

Back to the story actual story, it's interesting that this guy had been pulling off this siphoning scheme for decades. I'm a little confused by the spinning "straw hat". I'm curious what this refers to. A literal straw hat, or the name of some kind of flow indicator? I'm trying to picture the scenario. I was always fascinated by irrigation structures like the ones commonly seen in CA. Lots of them are simple gravity fed systems that rely on rudimentary gates to divert water as needed. I wonder how often this sort of thing happens.
posted by 2N2222 at 8:24 AM on May 11 [3 favorites]

Farms were introduced in [California] because the water could be controlled from the rivers. Droughts are fine as long as the rivers flow. The Midwest US is too extreme weather wise.

And getting moreso, natch.

Still, I can’t help lamenting that the particular patch of exurban metro Detroit in which I grew up, renowned even then (the ‘80s) for having some of the richest farmland in the country, has long since been given over to strip malls, big-box stores, golf courses, McMansion subdivisions, and MAGA rallies.
posted by non canadian guy at 8:33 AM on May 11 [9 favorites]

Take a lovely fertile river plain, easily accessible with moderate weather that can grows prolifically. Put down a city, carve up the farmland, slap in thousands and thousands of crappy-built homes, add industry with all the noise, waste, and pollution. Start forcing your food production out into the desert where irrigation requires plenty of power to access a deep, very slow to renew, aquifer.
Presto, Boise, Idaho.
So much for trying to be strongly locavore and finding restaurants that source local foods. This is a local tragedy.
Now, take California and screw up the water and poison the farmland. This is a national tragedy.
posted by BlueHorse at 8:37 AM on May 11 [7 favorites]

Speaking as a farmer in California, this dude and his cronies belong in jail. Yesterday.

@pracowity I agree with you, farmers should pay way more for water, but that causes food prices to rise, and people freak out. However, climate change is causing food prices to rise anyway. Welcome to the anthropocene/pyrocene/etc. Expect your grocery bills to continue to rise, and be glad to get food at any price.

@ockmockbock it's easy to say just grow the food elsewhere, but climate has a huge part to play in what grows well where. I live next to to the Salinas valley where 80% of this nations winter greens are grown. You can't grow lettuce and kale under 1 foot of snow or in the desert. Instead, we are probably looking at a future with a smaller variety of fruits and vegetables available. I hope you like beets and potatoes!
posted by birdsongster at 9:15 AM on May 11 [16 favorites]

"as long as the rivers flow"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/02/05/colorado-river-drought-explained/

we are such a short-sighted selfish species.
posted by symbioid at 10:29 AM on May 11 [5 favorites]

Maybe this could be answered here. The article makes me curious how precisely water is measured in these canals. It sounds like the amount stolen by Falaschi wasn't outrageously huge, but not insignificant, either. My guess is that it was never really missed by the Bureau of Reclamation (or whoever is in charge of running the whole system). Falaschi had a pretty good thing going, skimming what may never be detected. Unless somebody happens to come across a mysterious unauthorized diversion.

I'm also curious how many farmers were in on the scheme. It seems possible that somebody paying the authority Falaschi was in charge of, could think the transaction was completely above board. But there also seems to be a certain type of farmer that feels pretty entitled and likes to think of themself as sticking it to the Man when it comes to their growing their crops. And would knowingly, even enthusiastically, pay for stolen water.
posted by 2N2222 at 10:57 AM on May 11 [2 favorites]

Arax’s The Dreamt Land goes into the details of the San Joaquin Valley’s water dramas quite well.
posted by torokunai at 1:22 PM on May 11 [3 favorites]

Any idea what these guys were growing? Alfalfa never gets mentioned.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:04 PM on May 11 [3 favorites]

farmers should pay way more for water, but that causes food prices to rise, and people freak out.
A lot of that is probably artificial.
For example, California is the biggest US producer of dairy products, but it exports 2.5 billion dollars worth of it every year, so they clearly don't need to produce so much milk. And dairy is very water-intensive in a state with water shortages. Wisconsin, meanwhile, is already the second-largest dairy state and they have plenty of fresh water. California should produce no more dairy than it needs for internal consumption. Let Wisconsin (and other states that actually have water) pick up the dairy export slack, and maybe Californians can get cheaper dairy products from those other states.
And California's other most water-intensive agricultural exports are nuts (almonds and pistachios). When your state is running out of water, don't grow water-intensive party snacks .
posted by pracowity at 2:06 PM on May 11 [11 favorites]

These snacks produce a cash profit of $50 to $100 per tree per year, with ~120 trees per acre
posted by torokunai at 3:56 PM on May 11 [2 favorites]

@pracowity I don't necessarily disagree with you on principle, but in practice, switching up what is grown where proves extremely difficult to do. The right to farm, which includes farm whatever the hell I want, is deeply ingrained in our legal structures around agriculture in this country. The behemoth known as The Farm Bill further calcifies existing structures with piles of subsidies to keep farmers growing what they grow.
(corn & ethanol = head & desk)

And as torokunai points out, nut crops are some of the most profitable crops to grow, period. Almonds in particular grow in only a very narrow climate band, which does not include Wisconsin.

It's extremely hard to make money as a farmer, and most farmers I know are simply struggling to survive. Many of us hate the system, but it's going to take incredible public and political will to change embedded systems. For better or worse, I fear climate change is simply going to take any rational and planned decision making right out of our hands.
posted by birdsongster at 4:03 PM on May 11 [8 favorites]

For example, California is the biggest US producer of dairy products, but it exports 2.5 billion dollars worth of it every year, so they clearly don't need to produce so much milk. And dairy is very water-intensive in a state with water shortages. Wisconsin, meanwhile, is already the second-largest dairy state and they have plenty of fresh water. California should produce no more dairy than it needs for internal consumption. Let Wisconsin (and other states that actually have water) pick up the dairy export slack, and maybe Californians can get cheaper dairy products from those other states.

Call me crazy, but this... doesn't seem like a realistic idea.

Is there any reason why Wisconsin producers can't already produce more? Which would allow not only Californians, but everyone get cheaper dairy?
posted by 2N2222 at 4:04 PM on May 11 [1 favorite]

Milk is heavy and needs to stay refrigerated, so there are economic and logistical benefits to having it distributed throughout the country.This is a neat infographic of where milk is produced in the US.
posted by birdsongster at 4:28 PM on May 11 [5 favorites]

Sure, it makes sense for California to produce its own milk, but a state that is short on water shouldn't be using up lots of that water just to ship it out of state (and out of the country) to make a buck.
posted by pracowity at 5:42 PM on May 11 [3 favorites]

Sure, it makes sense for California to produce its own milk, but a state that is short on water shouldn't be using up lots of that water just to ship it out of state (and out of the country) to make a buck.

Shipping it to any market that wants it, aka "making a buck", is the best reason ship it anywhere that will pay.

People seem to think ag should be centrally controlled, despite the terrible history of that exact practice. The experience in the US alone is decidedly... mixed. I'm being gracious here. All we need is wise and benevolent leaders to decide what and how much is grown where, right?

What is probably needed is more market forces created by actual supply and demand, rather than arbitrary restrictions in reaction to older arbitrary restrictions. Such as subsidised water for farmers, as you pointed out.

However, this is, to a large extent, a moot point. As I wrote earlier, CA is very well suited to the ag business, even with its water issues. Waving away the built in capacity because you object to water use, or making a buck off water use, is simply not serious.
posted by 2N2222 at 6:16 PM on May 11 [3 favorites]

This is a job for (guitar riff) the ZANJERO!
posted by The otter lady at 6:33 PM on May 11 [1 favorite]

The beauty of non-coastal California Ag is that it doesn’t get any rain May through October, and so many old-world Asian crops require that.

So the water dumped into irrigation canals can either come from fossil aquifers (on its face unsustainable but OTOH there’s a lot of water down there) or, being smart and capturing the Sierra snowpack runoff behind dams and apportioning the water out over the growing season.

Fresno has two dams in the foothills for this purpose, but there’s a century-plus of legal squabbles and Federal deal-making limiting who gets what.
posted by torokunai at 7:52 PM on May 11 [2 favorites]

Not California, and a novel, but add The Milagro Beanfield War to the book pile.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:56 AM on May 13