Don't start giving away our water to the highest bidder

What does the future hold? The cannabis industry projects that water demand will increase significantly by 2025, and argues that our precious public trust resource – water - should be allocated to the highest bidder. Monetizing our scarce water supply is a slippery slope.

New Frontier Data, a cannabis research group, issued a 2021 report stating that cannabis water use will almost double by 2025. The report projects an 86% increase in water use based on highly diverse practices in the new regulated cannabis industry. Of concern is the revelation that the driver of water demand is still illicit or un-permitted cannabis operations, which are expected to account for 69% or two-thirds of water use in 2025. 

During the August 2021 public input sessions, cannabis representatives advocated for their "right" to this water based on the idea that "cannabis drives more revenue per acre". This argument was first posed by a March 2021, New Frontier Data, article comparing cannabis to high-water use crops, which made the case that water supplies should be allocated to most profitable product through an incomprehensible “footprint formula,” conflating irrigation demand per acre planted with gross revenue per acre received.  

Put another way, the 2021 report compared the legal cannabis industry water demand against high-water use commodities such as rice or almonds that have much higher levels of planted acreage. Then, made the leap to a false equivalency that cannabis is less water intensive since it uses less water on per $ of gross revenue generated.

It’s no surprise that when comparing water demand to dollars in revenue, intoxicants are the most lucrative, although even wine grape revenues at $2/pound are significantly less than current cannabis revenues of $250-500/pound.  Given leafy greens and other food products will never generate that level of revenue per acre, this proposal to allocate California’s dwindling water supplies to the most lucrative products is a very slippery slope. And, taking this premise to its full absurdity, Sonoma County should be exclusively covered in opium poppy fields, which would generate an even higher revenue per acre.

But water is a public good and - so far - we're not selling it to the highest bigger or in fact charging based on "ability to pay". Everyone pays the same amount (or withdraws it for free from stream diversions and wells), thus revenues generated only impact one stakeholder -- the cannabis farmer.

If we were auctioning water off to the highest bidder, the Cannabis industry would likely put up a hue and cry how they are going broke paying for water. It's notable the the industry points to gross revenues as their success metric, since they are reportedly not breaking even on a net basis (given the recent tax moratorium discussion) and so would not be a particularly high ranking use if we took ability to pay into account.

This is just another red herring argument by an industry that wants to profit from Sonoma's resources without giving anything back.