>
Seems to me they’ve already put this off way too long. Have to wonder what effect this is going to have on the country as a whole. >


Have to wonder what effect this is going to have on the country as a whole.

No need to wonder. Lots of stuff has been written about climate change. >

I get that. I’m talking specifically with this issue, such as which food will be affected. >

Thanks >

So when are the farmers and ranchers going to move to where the water is? That's what I'm waiting to hear about since that's 80-90% of the usage right there. Only a tiny amount goes to direct human usage. >

There needs to be significant regulations put on farms. Particularly when you have some of them existing or even just created in the past decade just to send crops outside of the US and using the dwindling water supply to accomplish it.
There also needs to be real discussions about diet alterations going forward. There is going to   have to be changes as to what's "plentiful/available" moving forward because of climate change. That may mean less dairy in the average American's diet. Republicans will obviously fight against this, but the best start is to get kids in school early to get used to a different diet. >

Whoa now. Sounds like that might change up some of the subsidies. /s
Better eating habits gets complex quick but I think the biggest hurdle for many will be smaller portions. Switching up what a person eats takes time but less so. >

California has been a water pig for years, decades. They’ve always managed to appropriate more than their share of every source. >

Go look how much food is grown here. 
It’s not average people using all the water.  It’s the conservative farmers. >

The Central Valley gets very little, if any, water from the Colorado River. A lot of it comes from the CV Aquifer and most of the rest comes from the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus Rivers.
SoCal should have been building desalination plants years ago but it was easier and cheaper to steal from the Upper Basin. >

The Central Valley isn't the only place with farms in California.  There are farms throughout the south east part of California watered by the Colorado River that shouldn't exist.  Just like the farms in Arizona that shouldn't exist either. >

Is it money? Like we just pay the penalties for going over our allotment? >

It is money, but far more to do with the value of commercial water rights than civilian water usage. As I understood it (it’s been 4-5 years since I looked into California water rights / Colorado River allotments), it’s a “use it or lose it” policy. If you’ve got rights for some amount of water per year and your usage falls short of that amount, your allotment will be decreased for the following years, and is unlikely to ever be increased, for obvious reasons. Not to say it’s common, but an entity wishing to retain their rights in the future will happily transition to water-intensive crops (often alfalfa) if they aren’t planning on using their entire allotment for their usual crop. 
There certainly are individuals who use excessive amounts of water for their households and are willing to pay fines / inflated rates, but there is far more political pressure from commercial entities fighting to retain their access to the same source.
Note: not reading the LA Times article because it’s paywalled, not sure what their justification for it is.