It is no shock, least to whom the agricultural sector, that California is experiencing a water crisis.  The impetus of this crisis, natural or political, is up for debate. But regardless of the cause, agriculture has suffered the most losses as a result.

Approximately 46% of California's fresh citrus is produced in the Friant Service Area and will receive zero percent surface water allocation for a second year in a row. 

The Governor recognized this fact in a press release Wednesday stating that agriculture users "have borne much of the brunt of the drought to date, with hundreds of thousands of fallowed acres, significantly reduced water allocation and thousands of farmworkers laid off."

Nevertheless, it's too often reported that the agriculture industry is guzzling up 80% the State's diminishing water supply.  This is not true.

According to the State Water Resources Control Board the average annual water supply in the State of California from rain and snowpack is 200 million acre-feet.  58.8% of that total remains undeveloped.  The remaining 41.2% (82.5 million acre-feet) is developed water. Of that, 41% is used by agriculture to grow food and fiber for people.  10.8% goes to urban and industrial use.  47.8% is used for environmental purposes.

By the Governor's Order cities and towns across the state must reduce water use by 25%. This represents a savings of approximately 1.5 million acre-feet, the amount currently in Lake Oroville, in 9 months.  Based on current water use this equals a 2.7% savings in California's total annual water supply.  While this by no means comes close to the "mandatory reductions" that Friant water users are grappling with (100%), it is something.

But what if there was a mandatory reduction on the use of developed water for environmental purposes (remember, undeveloped water is also used by the environment)? How much water could California save then?

A 25% reduction in environmental water use could equal a savings of approximately 9.85 million acre-feet in one year (or 7.39 million acre-feet in 9 months). Less than 4% would need to be cut to save 1.5 million acre-feet. 

It has been suggested that that agriculture is "exempt" from mandatory restrictions when in reality the only user of water that has not been asked, or forced, to take a cut is the environment. Is that balance?