California Has Plenty of Water
Setting the Record Straight on California’s Water Supply Situation
I have 25 years of experience as a researcher and analyst in water resources. I know the history. I know the policies. I have seen the data. I know what I am talking about when it comes to water in California. The state has been prone to vicious battles over water and related false propaganda since long before I entered this field, but it seems to have reached a new high. When I started working in this field, it was a niche industry. The public did not think about water policy or water resources unless there was an incident to make it salient (e.g. if water bills skyrocketed or water failed to come out of the tap).
Water resources did come to the forefront of the public consciousness in 2015, when amid a severe and unrelenting drought and after calls for voluntary conservation failed, then-Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order directing the California Water Resources Control Board to develop a mandatory conservation framework. I wrote an article about the extensive regulatory approach to deal with the drought in the Journal of Water and followed-on with a series about the unintended consequences of the mandatory conservation standards in the Hydrowonk Blog.
However, the recent dominance of water in the mind of the public is not due to implementation of a draconian policy or its impact. It was an ill-informed (read: false) statement by Donald Trump. I am not anti-Trump, but I’m not MAGA either. My interest lies with policy, and on the water policy thing he’s wrong.
On January 8, 2025, some fire hydrants in Pacific Palisades failed while firefighters were trying to battle a devasting wildfire. News reports showed an empty water tank in Palisades, and President-elect Donald Trump (President-elect because the inauguration had not yet happened) was quick to fire off an accusation that there was no water because of California Governor Gavin Newsom failed to sign a water restoration declaration.
Nothing about Trump’s statement was accurate. There was no water restoration declaration, and not because Newsom didn’t sign one. No such document had been proposed. That type of edict is contrary to the California Constitution and would be contrary to a complex set of state and federal laws governing water in California. The fire hydrants failed because of infrastructure limitations, not because of water supplies or water policies. California, and even Southern California, has plenty of water available, and it is flowing.
California Has Plenty of Water
Also on January 8, the California Data Exchange Center (CDEC), a website that reports telemetry readings from the reservoirs in the state, showed that we had 26.1 million acre-feet (or more than 8.5 trillion gallons) of water in storage, which is 122% the average amount of water in storage for the date. Looking at individual reservoirs, not just the collective statewide figures, most of the state’s reservoirs were at least 70% full and some quite a bit more than that. From an operational standpoint, that is full, maybe even over full, because of the capacity that should be left available for flood control purposes. Current figures (as of January 29), show the trend continuing. There is now 26.4 million acre-feet in storage, which is 117% of the average for the date. (The volume has increased, but the percent of the historical average has gone down because we usually have increase in storage due to winter storms during January). California is not out of water. In fact, the state has more water in storage than usual, and a lot of this is held in south-of-the-Delta reservoirs.
What about the empty tank in Palisades?
A social media troll accused me of spreading false information when I said that California has full reservoirs. He cited the empty tanks in Palisades that were shown all over the news. The problem with a non-expert is that they don’t know the vocabulary. While anything that holds a volume of liquid can technically be called a “reservoir,” there is a big difference between the water supply reservoirs I was referring to and the tanks that used as pressure regulators in the municipal water system in Palisades. The tanks, which each hold 1 million gallons (or about 3.07 acre-feet, which is a year's supply for about 6 families) ran dry because, under the extreme emergency situation, water was being pulled out of the system faster than it was being put in, so there was not enough pressure to move water to and through the hydrants.
California does have issues to resolve, but they lie in the sustainability of its water supplies, not in the current reliability. Strategies currently being used, expanded, or developed, include reuse, stormwater capture, conjunctive management (primarily using groundwater basins to store surface water), desalination, reducing demands, and developing new supplies where they exist.
About the Creator
Risen Writing
Experienced policy analyst exploring other genres and sharing my lived experiences
Keep reading
More stories from Risen Writing and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
France Steps Back as G7 Summit Is Rescheduled to Avoid Clash With White House UFC Event
In an unexpected twist that has raised eyebrows across diplomatic circles, France has agreed to step back from its preferred scheduling as the G7 summit was moved to avoid a direct clash with a White House–hosted UFC event. The decision, while seemingly procedural, has sparked wider debate about political priorities, international symbolism, and how global diplomacy increasingly competes with high-profile domestic events for attention. The Group of Seven (G7) — comprising the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, and Japan — is traditionally a stage for coordinated responses to the world’s most pressing challenges. From wars and climate change to economic instability and technological regulation, the summit is meant to project unity and seriousness. That is why the rescheduling, reportedly prompted by a clash with a major UFC event linked to the White House calendar, has drawn both criticism and bemusement. How a Scheduling Conflict Became a Diplomatic Issue According to diplomatic sources, France had initially proposed dates for the upcoming G7 meeting that aligned with its broader foreign policy agenda. However, those dates conflicted with a high-profile UFC event scheduled to take place with strong White House backing. Rather than competing for political attention — particularly from U.S. leadership — negotiations led to a decision to move the summit. France, as a key diplomatic player within the G7, ultimately agreed to “tap out,” a phrase borrowed from mixed martial arts that has been widely used by commentators to describe the outcome. While the term adds humor to the situation, the underlying implications are far more serious. At its core, the episode highlights how domestic political events in powerful countries can influence international diplomacy, sometimes in unexpected ways. The White House, Spectacle, and Soft Power The involvement of a UFC event — a sporting spectacle with massive popular appeal — points to a broader trend in modern politics: the blending of entertainment, image-making, and governance. Sporting events have long been used as tools of soft power, from Olympic Games to World Cups. However, the idea that a global diplomatic summit would be rescheduled to avoid clashing with a combat sports event hosted around the White House is a striking illustration of changing priorities. For U.S. officials, the UFC event reportedly carried significant domestic political value, attracting media attention, high-profile guests, and a large public audience. In an era where optics and engagement matter as much as policy substance, the White House appeared unwilling to divide focus. This placed allies like France in a difficult position. Insisting on original dates risked reduced U.S. engagement at the summit — something no G7 country wants, given Washington’s central role in global decision-making. France’s Calculated Compromise France’s decision to accept the rescheduling reflects diplomatic pragmatism rather than weakness. French officials are well aware that the effectiveness of a G7 summit depends heavily on full participation and attention from all members, particularly the United States. By stepping aside on scheduling, France avoided a potential scenario where the summit would be overshadowed, poorly attended, or perceived as secondary. Still, critics argue that the move sets an uncomfortable precedent, suggesting that entertainment-driven political events can take priority over multilateral diplomacy. Supporters of France’s decision counter that diplomacy is about choosing battles wisely. Preserving unity and ensuring productive discussions, they argue, matters more than symbolic rigidity over dates. Reactions From Other G7 Members Other G7 nations have reacted cautiously, with most avoiding public criticism. Privately, however, diplomats have expressed concern that the episode reflects a deeper imbalance in how global governance is conducted. Some European officials worry that repeated concessions could weaken the perceived seriousness of forums like the G7. If summits are seen as flexible around domestic political calendars — particularly those tied to spectacle — their authority may gradually erode. At the same time, countries such as Japan and Canada are said to have supported the compromise, emphasizing the importance of maintaining smooth relations and ensuring the summit remains effective rather than symbolic. What This Says About Global Leadership Today Beyond the immediate scheduling issue, the incident offers insight into the evolving nature of global leadership. Politics today operates in a crowded attention economy, where leaders juggle international crises, domestic pressures, and media-driven events simultaneously. The clash between a G7 summit and a UFC event may seem trivial on the surface, but it reflects how political capital is increasingly tied to visibility and public engagement. Leaders must balance governing with maintaining relevance in a fast-moving media landscape. For traditional diplomatic powers like France, this shift can be frustrating. European diplomacy often emphasizes process, continuity, and institutional strength — values that can clash with more performative political styles. Critics Warn of Slippery Slope Critics argue that accommodating such conflicts risks normalizing the sidelining of diplomacy. Today it may be a UFC event; tomorrow it could be an election rally, a media appearance, or another high-profile spectacle. They warn that global challenges — from ongoing conflicts to climate emergencies — demand sustained, focused leadership. Anything that dilutes the importance of forums designed to address these issues could have long-term consequences. Some commentators have also pointed out the irony of world leaders struggling to align schedules at a time when global cooperation is more urgently needed than ever. Conclusion: Symbolism Matters France’s decision to step back as the G7 summit was moved to avoid clashing with a White House UFC event is more than a quirky headline. It is a reflection of the changing dynamics of power, attention, and symbolism in international politics. While the rescheduling may ensure better participation and smoother logistics, it also raises uncomfortable questions about what global leaders prioritize — and how diplomacy competes with spectacle in the modern age. As the G7 eventually convenes, the real test will not be the date on the calendar, but whether leaders can rise above distractions and deliver meaningful action. Still, the episode will linger as a reminder that in today’s world, even the most serious global gatherings are not immune to the pull of entertainment and domestic politics.
By Muhammad Hassan6 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.