YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsDrought


July 12, 1988
It doesn't take a Nostradamus to predict the upcoming consumer rip-off by the food industry. Using the present drought as a reason, breads, cereals, pastas, flours, and all other grain containing foods will increase in price far more than the higher basic grain price resulting from the drought justifies. Take wheat for example; even if its price on the Chicago exchange doubles from the early year $3 a bushel to $6, that is only a 6-cent per pound increase! I'm sure we pay more for the packaging than the contents of a 10-ounce box of cereal.
February 19, 2014 | By Anthony York
SACRAMENTO - Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders unveiled a proposed $687.4-million drought-relief package Wednesday to free up water supplies and aid Californians facing financial ruin because of the state's prolonged dry spell. The proposal would provide millions of dollars to clean up drinking water, improve conservation and make irrigation systems more efficient. It would increase penalties for those who illegally divert water. The plan also contains money for emergency food and housing for those out of work because of the drought, including farmworkers, and to provide emergency drinking water to communities in need.
April 14, 1990
What good will it do for me to try to cut back on our water use by 10% when hundreds of people keep coming into the Los Angeles area every day and are using up my 10%? MARTIE BERNHART Burbank
April 6, 2007
Re "By every measure, it's been dry," March 31 Reading about the concern in California and the Western states regarding the lack of rain and the low snowpack in the mountains causing serious droughts, one has to wonder why these states, with several in the enviable position of directly facing the huge Pacific Ocean, are not urgently considering building desalination plants. Some years ago, when desalination was mentioned, the immediate reply from politicians was that it was too expensive.
March 10, 1991
Several years ago, when government officials first started talking about California's severe drought, I turned a deaf ear. How could I take what they said seriously when every other day they were approving the construction of new homes? During the last few years, I actually increased my water consumption while many of my dumb neighbors cut back. Why? Because I realized that when things got really bad (but not that bad to halt the construction of new homes), homeowners would be forced to reduce their water consumption based on a previous year's use. I wanted to make sure that my previous year was high enough so that when I was forced to reduce, I'd still be able to do all the things I like to do. If the politicians had stopped new construction once the drought became apparent, I would have done my part.
February 10, 1991
Upon reading your editorial "Agriculture's Big Thirst Is No Longer a Sacred Cow" (Jan. 16), one might draw the conclusion that agriculture has been dragged, kicking and complaining, into the discussion over how cities and farms share water resources in times of drought. That is unfair and inaccurate. The reader might also, after reading your editorial, conclude that farmers are getting all the water they want while city dwellers face mandatory rationing. The truth is that many farms in California are getting less than 50% of their normal allotment of water this year, and if the drought continues, may be entirely cut off from state and federal supplies.
July 22, 1990
Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley and the City Council have been loudly braying that we are in a profoundly dangerous drought and at the same time promoting the Porter Ranch development ("City Council OKs Massive Porter Ranch Development," July 12) that at last count has 3,395 homes with 11,000 occupants. These will be upscale homes that will, no doubt, have multiple toilets being flushed multiple times, swimming pools being filled, and refilled, showers being showered and lawns being sprinkled.
June 5, 2010 | By Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times
Studies of oyster shells taken from an abandoned well confirm that English colonists who settled on Jamestown Island in 1607 unknowingly picked the worst possible time for their endeavor, arriving in the midst of a drought nearly unprecedented in local history. Research on tree rings had already shown that the colonists' arrival in Virginia coincided with the beginning of the driest seven-year period in 800 years, and their written records — albeit scanty — confirmed that they encountered near-horrific privation.
Los Angeles Times Articles