Does Califonia need 3 times as many Senators?

Regardless of the nature of the water right in question, two very important principles will always apply. First, under the California Constitution, water must be put to reasonable and beneficial use. No water right grants any party the right to waste or make an reasonable use of water, and any water right can be curtailed or revoked if it is determined that the holder of that right has engaged in a wasteful or unreasonable use of water.

Second, no water user in the State "owns" any water. Instead, a water right grants the holder thereof only the right to use water (called a "usufructuary right"). The owner of "legal title" to all water is the State in its capacity as a trustee for the benefit of the public. The so-called "public trust doctrine" requires the State, as a trustee, to manage its public trust resources (including water) so as to derive the maximum benefit for its citizenry. The benefits to be considered and balanced include economic, recreational, aesthetic and environmental; if at any time the trustee determines that a use of water other than the then current use would better serve the public trust, the State has the power and the obligation to reallocate that water in accordance with the public's interest. Even if the water at issue has been put to beneficial use (and relied upon) for decades, it can be taken from one user in favor of another need or use. The public trust doctrine therefore means that no water rights in California are truly "vested" in the traditional sense of property rights

Don't buy almonds or grapes or anything made from them, or be part of the problem and not the solution.

agriculture can be seen as exporting a portion of your water supply...

Carbon dioxide emissions and climate change
The concrete industry is one of two largest producers of carbon dioxide (CO2), creating up to 5% of worldwide man-made emissions of this gas, of which 50% is from the chemical process and 40% from burning fuel.[1] The carbon dioxide CO2 produced for the manufacture of structural concrete (using ~14% cement) is estimated at 410 kg/m3 (~180 kg/tonne @ density of 2.3 g/cm3) (reduced to 290 kg/m3 with 30% fly ash replacement of cement).[3] The CO2 emission from the concrete production is directly proportional to the cement content used in the concrete mix; 900 kg of CO2 are emitted for the fabrication of every ton of cement, accounting for 88% of the emissions associated with the average concrete mix.[4][5] Cement manufacture contributes greenhouse gases both directly through the production of carbon dioxide when calcium carbonate is thermally decomposed, producing lime and carbon dioxide,[6] and also through the use of energy, particularly from the combustion of fossil fuels.

One area of the concrete life cycle worth noting is the fact that concrete has a very low embodied energy relative to the quantity that is used. This is primarily the result of the fact that the materials used in concrete construction, such as aggregates, pozzolans, and water, are relatively plentiful and can often be drawn from local sources.[7] This means that transportation only accounts for 7% of the embodied energy of concrete, while the cement production accounts for 70%. With a total embodied energy of 1.69 GJ/tonne concrete is lower than any other building material besides wood. It is worth noting that this value is based on mix proportions for concrete of no more than 20% fly ash. It is estimated that one percent replacement of cement with fly ash represents a .7% reduction in energy consumption. With some proposed mixes containing as much as 80% fly ash, this would represent a considerable energy savings.[5]

Well that entirely depends on which water you're talking about. Water rights are extremely complicated but at the end of the day the water rights holders own the water (represented by their rights to it).

In that respect the state does not own the water and then determine how to dole it out. It's the exact opposite in fact, the state tries mightily to corral unruly water rights holders into some semblance of a state water policy... mostly unsuccessfully.

The state does own some of the conveyance however, state water project canals, for example. That is but a piece of the whole puzzle however.

Splitting the state into three wouldn't alter the water rights situation one iota as far as I can tell. I'm open to other opinions though! :)

ohn

I looked at a couple of maps that show house seats as solid Democrats or Republicans or leaning D/R. And compared it to the three way split. It looks decidedly Republican.

Since the state has the final say on how the water is ultimately distributed, dividing the state into 3 sovereign bodies would be a nightmare. If you think water is politicized now, imagine it x3. Same for ever other agency in the state.

If this were to happen it would be Trumps all the way down. Would we be spending yen, or rubles?