Do we really have to choose between irrigating almonds and delivering water to cities?
In a recent KQED broadcast titled “Why is water so expensive in California?,” Alexis Madrigal summarized the commentary provided by Max Gomberg, senior policy advisor to the State Water Resources Control Board, by implying the state must choose between irrigating almond orchards and servicing 10 million people if we are going to control increasing urban water costs.
But is this really the case? Are high urban water rates in California really a result of limited supply?
It turns out, not really.
What are we paying for?
The truth is most of the water bill pays for the pipes, pumps, and treatment plants that bring safe water to the tap.
In 2024-25, only about a quarter of what California cities spent on their water utilities went to buying or acquiring water, according to State Controller reports.
In fact, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) found that as much as 70 to 80 percent of a typical water utility’s costs are fixed and stay the same, regardless of how much water a family uses. Many urban systems were built in the 1950s and 1960s and are now reaching the end of their usable life. This means costly maintenance and replacement projects, which urban water ratepayers must pay for.
Utilities are also investing in removing PFAS, the so-called “forever chemicals,” from drinking water, and those treatment costs keep rising.
The water itself is the smaller part of the bill.
San Jose, home to the most expensive water in the country, provides a great example. About 42 cents of every customer dollar at San Jose Water goes towards buying water from Valley Water, the region’s wholesaler. Valley Water’s own budget shows that most of those 42 cents pay for dams, debt on past projects, groundwater management, and treatment. Water brought in from state and federal water projects, which deliver most of the surface water to agriculture in the Central Valley, works out to about 6 cents of the customer’s dollar.
The fastest-growing costs for water ratepayers are the ones farm water would never touch. Among the same California utilities reporting in 2016-17 and 2024-25, spending on treatment grew faster than spending on water supply for cities, local water districts, and regional wholesalers alike.
Would moving water from farms to cities lower rates?
Farm water and city water are different products. Farm deliveries are generally untreated, unpressurized, carried in open canals, and ordered a week or more in advance, while water for coastal cities travels long distances, is treated, and is pressurized for on-demand use. Even if we moved water from a farm to a city, it still must be carried, treated, stored, and pressurized before it reaches a faucet, with customers paying for each step.
The math is relatively straightforward. If imported water is about 6 cents of a San Jose customer’s dollar, cutting its cost by a fifth saves about a penny. The other 94 cents, for treatment, pipes, debt, and operations, stays on the bill.
What would change is the food. Water taken off a farm means fewer acres growing the fruits, nuts, and vegetables that fill grocery stores across the country.
California does need more reliable water.
Cities and farms both need more reliable water. Our state has not built a major water infrastructure project since the 70s despite our population having doubled. In addition, our state’s weather whiplash is only increasing, with eight of the 10 biggest year-to-year swings in water years since recording began in 1896 having occurred in the last 50 years. And while average precipitation remains consistent, it more often arrives as rain rather than snow. Today’s system wasn’t built for this reality, as we oscillate between extreme floods and drought.
And while projects such as Sites Reservoir will bring much-needed flexibility and relief for urban water managers, construction of this project alone won’t be enough to meet current demand.
The state legislature recognizes this reality, having passed SB 72 last year with bipartisan support. This landmark legislation identified the need for an additional 9 million acre-feet of water supplies to close the demand gap.
Water in California is not a zero-sum game.
The good news is that we can get more from the system we already have. By leveraging updated technology and forecasting methods, water managers will have better information to make critical operations decisions, unlocking access to existing resources previously inaccessible.
For example, reservoir operators can leverage advanced weather forecasting technology like FIRO-MAR to inform reservoir-level management based on anticipated weather events. A 2026 study by researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and UC Merced found that using better weather forecasts to run 20 reservoirs could add about 315,000 acre-feet of water a year, more than 100 billion gallons, worth $100 million to $200 million a year to farms and cities.
Increasing the amount of data available through aerial snowpack surveys can also provide critical information to help water managers plan for and efficiently capture available water supplies. By measuring the amount of water stored in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, these surveys help managers anticipate spring runoff, determine how much water will be available, and make informed decisions about when and where to divert flows.
Yet, while our ability to forecast water availability continues to improve, California’s complicated and lengthy permitting process can prevent water managers from acting on that information, often making it difficult to capture available flood flows and use that water to recharge groundwater when conditions are right.
For example, during the wet year of 2023, on-farm recharge expanded dramatically, with PPIC estimating that 7.6 million acre-feet of water percolated into San Joaquin Valley aquifers. At the same time, permits to divert floodwater remain a major bottleneck, even after 2023 executive orders relaxed some limits. Faster permits would let farms capture more of those flood flows.
Agriculture is part of the solution.
California farmers have a deep connection to the land they work, often caring for it across several generations. Most of California’s farms are family-owned and operated by people who live and work in the same communities where they grow their crops. For decades, these growers have provided nutritious, safe food to families nationwide at affordable prices.
And they are growing more with less. PPIC reports that farm water use was 15 percent lower in 2018 than in 1980, while the inflation-adjusted value of farm production was 23 percent higher.
Keeping water affordable starts with the costs that set our bills: treatment, aging pipes, and the fixed cost of running a safe system. It also means helping the families who need it the most. California’s urban water agencies estimate that about a third of their customers meet the state’s definition of low income.
Understanding what we pay for on our water bills is the first step toward finding meaningful ways to lower costs while protecting our ability to grow food. Pitting affordable water against a reliable food supply creates a false choice and distracts from the real solutions we need.
