Debates over water are nothing new in California. However, the discussion has resurfaced following a recent study comparing what urban areas and agriculture pay for surface water.
A December 2025 CalMatters article by Rachel Becker and Natasha Uzcátegui-Liggett highlights the ongoing debate over how much California’s cities and agricultural districts pay for water. The study notes that major cities often pay more than $2,500 per acre-foot, while farmers pay far less under long-standing water rights and contracts. Some urban officials point to this difference as evidence that agriculture is receiving a “free ride.”
It is not a free ride. It is a reflection of reality. Without reliable water for agriculture, America’s food supply collapses, local economies are devastated, and the Central Valley suffers — not because of drought, but because of policy choices.
For decades, state and federal water policy has prioritized large cities over regions that make California a top food producer. Merced County alone ranks fifth in California agricultural production, generating more than $4 billion annually. If Merced County were its own state, it would rank 34th in total agricultural output nationwide.
Agriculture in Merced County — and throughout the Central Valley — is not a niche interest. It is one of the most productive agricultural regions on Earth. Farmers here feed the state, the nation, and much of the world. Every almond, tomato, pistachio, melon, and dairy product that leaves this Valley depends on water dedicated to agriculture for generations.
This kind of divide-and-conquer approach does nothing to move the discussion forward. It forces each side into hardened positions and ignores a basic reality: urban population centers rely on the food grown in the Central Valley, just as agricultural communities rely on urban markets to purchase our commodities. When one side is weakened, we all suffer.
Yet many urban regions increasingly treat agricultural water as a reserve they can tap when shortages, budget pressures, or planning failures catch up with them. They ask why farmers do not pay the same prices cities do, as if comparing a global food system to an apartment complex makes sense.
This perspective is not just misguided — it is dangerous. Farmers are not hoarding water; they are using it to grow food. When farms lose water, crops do not become slightly less profitable — they disappear. Fields go unplanted, jobs vanish, and grocery prices rise.
Meanwhile, cities have expanded outward for decades, approving sprawling development, water-intensive landscaping, and infrastructure built on assumptions of unlimited supply. Now, instead of confronting those planning decisions, some propose shifting the burden onto the very communities that supply their food.
The solution is not to strip farms of the water that produces food. The solution is to expand and modernize California’s water system. We need additional storage to capture water in wet years, modern conveyance, large-scale groundwater recharge, advanced recycling, and infrastructure that supports both rural and urban communities.
These investments increase supply. Reallocating agricultural water only shifts the crisis.
Protecting long-standing agricultural water rights is not a rural favor; it is a national necessity. If we continue prioritizing city convenience over farm reliability, the consequences will be felt far beyond the Central Valley — in every grocery store, restaurant, and family kitchen in America. California’s farmers are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for the water they have relied on for generations so they can keep feeding all of us.
Josh Pedrozo represents District 2 on the Merced County Board of Supervisors.