A Voice for Water Policy Reform
California’s ongoing water crisis remains one of the state’s most critical and divisive issues — a struggle that affects farmers, cities, and the environment alike. In a recent AgMeter interview, Edward Ring, Director of Energy and Water Policy at the California Policy Center, shared his insights on the state’s water management failures, the political roadblocks preventing progress, and his vision for rebuilding a functional water infrastructure.
Ring, affectionately introduced as “the Water Master” or even “King Ring,” quickly downplayed the title but underscored his passion for the issue: “Water is fascinating and extremely important to us all.”
Prop 50 and the Future of Farming
As discussions turned to the potential impact of Proposition 50, Ring didn’t hesitate to share his concern. “It probably will [hurt farming],” he said. “Hopefully not too much, because hopefully some of these Democrats that start taking over agricultural districts will actually come out and visit their constituents and realize how important it is.”
He noted that while the initiative seems likely to pass based on polling, the measure poses real risks to California’s agricultural sector — and could intensify long-standing water restrictions that already strain rural economies.
AgMeter’s host echoed frustration with the measure, calling it “unconstitutional” and predicting a long court battle if it moves forward.
The Foundation of California’s Economy
Ring emphasized that agriculture is not just a sector of California’s economy — it’s the backbone of many communities. “There’s an estimated half a million people that work directly in agriculture in California,” he explained. “You have to take into account all of the members of our economy that if there wasn’t a farm economy, there wouldn’t be their economy either.”
Without a robust farm industry, Ring warned, countless small towns throughout the Central Valley would simply “fizzle up.”
North vs. South: The Delta Divide
Much of the state’s water debate centers on the division between the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. According to Ring, “The Sacramento Valley’s got a lot more water up there already… There’s a lot less desperation up north because they’ve got more water right there, north of the Delta.”
But for the five million acres of irrigated farmland south of the Delta, the situation is dire. “Five million acres in the San Joaquin Valley requires about 15 million acre-feet of water every year,” Ring said. “Where are you going to get that water if you can’t pump it out of the ground and you can’t import it from the Delta?”
As groundwater pumping becomes more regulated, farmers face impossible choices — relying on unsustainable wells or fallowing once-productive land. Ring insists that only new infrastructure and updated management policies can prevent further damage.
Smarter Water Management: Pumping and Storage
Ring’s solutions begin with simple but politically sensitive changes. “The easiest immediate solution,” he explained, “is to get those pumps moving a little bit more.”
Currently, restrictions on the state and federal Delta pumps — which together can move up to 30,000 acre-feet per day — are limiting water deliveries that could otherwise stabilize farm operations. “If you ran those things at full blast for the whole winter, you’d have plenty of water going south,” Ring said, calling current limitations “unreasonable.”
While some environmental concerns are valid, Ring argued that there are ways to move water south without harming fish or ecosystems. However, he added cautiously that publicizing specific alternative methods could attract litigation from groups opposed to any new water diversions.
California’s Political Gridlock
The conversation turned to the long history of political inaction on water projects — including the $7.45 billion approved by voters under Proposition 1 in 2014 for new storage. “I don’t think a penny has gone to that,” AgMeter observed.
Ring agreed, calling California’s political system “crazy.” While modest improvements, such as an expansion at San Luis Reservoir, have occurred, other major projects like Temperance Flat and Sites Reservoir remain stalled by litigation and bureaucracy.
“Everything in California goes back to the crazy politics,” he said. “We can’t really build anything big in California anymore. It takes 30, 40, 50 years to build things, and it costs two or three times as much as it ought to because of all the regulations and litigation.”
A Tale of Two Regions: Water Rich and Water Poor
The disparity between northern and southern California is glaring. As AgMeter pointed out, farms in areas like Manteca and Ripon enjoy steady water supplies, while just 90 minutes south, west side farmers face near-drought conditions.
Ring acknowledged the imbalance and laid out a hypothetical plan for reform if he were in charge. “I would pump more water,” he said plainly. “That’s the only thing we can do in the short run.”
Streamlining Projects and Restoring Capacity
Ring advocated for a return to 1950s-style project efficiency, where major water infrastructure could be approved and built in years, not decades. “We would have to streamline things back to what they used to be like in the 1950s and 1960s,” he said, noting that modern permitting delays often make construction “three times more expensive.”
Among his top priorities would be dredging the Delta — a “win-win” solution that increases water capacity while improving earthquake resilience. “If you dredge those channels, you get more volume into the Delta,” Ring explained. “You could use that silt to reinforce the levees, so you would accomplish two things at once.”
He also endorsed long-delayed projects like the Temperance Flat Reservoir, and possibly even the Auburn Dam, alongside expanded canal infrastructure to connect the American River with the Clifton Court Forebay.
Recharging the Central Valley
Another key strategy, Ring said, involves recharging the state’s depleted aquifers. Using modern mapping technology to locate ancient “paleo channels,” California could identify areas where water naturally percolates quickly into underground storage.
“You could actually recharge the aquifers really fast,” Ring said. “You could do it with 20,000 or 30,000 acres if you picked the right acres.”
This, he explained, could restore balance to the San Joaquin Valley’s groundwater systems — especially during years of heavy rain when excess flows currently run to the ocean.
Desalination: A Controversial but Necessary Solution
Finally, Ring turned to one of the most debated water solutions in California — desalination. “I think we should be doing desalination at the scale that they’re doing it in the Middle East,” he said.
Ring proposed large-scale plants at Vandenberg and Camp Pendleton, each capable of producing a million acre-feet of freshwater per year. “That would only cost you about 800 megawatts — just 40 percent of what Diablo Canyon produces,” he noted, calling it a modest energy tradeoff for a massive water benefit.
Desalination, he argued, should unite urban and agricultural interests. “I think the farmers and the people that want more water in our cities should be working together and supporting these various projects mutually.”
California’s Shrinking Farms and Growing Cities
As California’s cities expand and farmland continues to disappear, the state’s water crisis is reaching a breaking point. In a continuing AgMeter interview, Edward Ring, Director of Energy and Water Policy at the California Policy Center, spoke candidly about what he sees as the driving forces behind this imbalance — political inertia, environmental extremism, and misplaced priorities.
“Farming is shrinking,” Ring’s interviewer noted. “The cities are getting bigger with more housing going in — and housing needs water. Cities need water.”
Ring agreed, describing the state’s gridlock as a product of powerful lobbying forces. “The lobby that wants to stop development in California is very strong,” he said. “Some of it’s motivated by misguided concern for the environment. I think you can create as many environmental opportunities as you may undermine if you have more water.”
He explained that a healthy water system can benefit both people and nature. “If we had so much water, we didn’t know what to do with it, we could, for example, demolish a reservoir and bring back a twin to Yosemite,” he said. “What’s the value of that to environmentalists?”
But, as Ring pointed out, California’s environmental and no-growth movements are closely aligned. “They don’t want to see these projects because if we have these projects, they know that’s going to mean more people and more environmental impact — and they’re afraid of that.”
The Power of Politics and Perception
Ring warned that a new wave of redistricting is likely to make the situation worse, leaving rural and agricultural areas with even less political voice. “That’s one of the tragedies of this new gerrymandering,” he said. “It’s going to be even less representation for people that aren’t in urban areas.”
Urban residents, Ring added, are often unaware of their dependence on the infrastructure that sustains them. “When you’re in an urban area, you think that if you plug something in, that’s where electricity comes from. You don’t think about the hydroelectric dams or the nuclear power plants,” he said. “You just figure it’s going to happen.”
He noted that California still relies on natural gas for about 40 percent of its power — yet policymakers are working to shut those plants down without viable replacements. “They’re conditioned to believe that climate change is an existential crisis and that any sacrifice is necessary,” he said.
Questioning the Climate Narrative
The conversation soon turned to what Ring described as one of California’s most deeply held — and deeply flawed — policy assumptions: the notion of a man-made “climate crisis.”
“Are we really in a climate crisis?” he asked. “If you don’t believe we’re really in a climate crisis, half of the things that we’re being forced to regulate ourselves against go away.”
Ring criticized how climate justification now appears in nearly every government initiative. “Read any website on almost any government agency — what’s the first thing you read? Climate impact,” he said. “Everything you look at is justified by climate change. What if climate change is just normal?”
He argued that California’s leaders have built entire regulatory regimes around the premise of crisis — stifling practical solutions in the process. “If we didn’t have to change all of our laws and our entire way of life because of the climate crisis, how much would that shift the sentiments of our legislators and the priorities of our agencies?”
Ring was blunt about what he sees as the real problem: “You have to be willing to commit heresy. You have to be willing to say things that will get you excluded from polite company.”
Prosperity Through Practicality
Despite the controversy surrounding his views, Ring’s prescription for California’s environmental and economic health is rooted in pragmatism. “Let’s adapt. Let’s be prosperous,” he said. “Let’s invest in projects that are going to make water and energy abundant and affordable. Then we can handle whatever happens with the climate.”
Ring criticized the idea that limiting growth, banning construction, and shutting down traditional energy sources will make any measurable difference to global temperatures. “You’re not solving it by saying we can’t build any houses,” he argued. “You’re not solving it by shutting down all of our conventional sources of energy and not building anything that uses energy because every time we use energy, we’re killing the planet. That’s a scam.”
In his view, climate panic is being weaponized to reshape California’s economy and erode public prosperity. “People are being brainwashed into panicking over this whole thing,” he said. “It’s allowing special interests to take control of our economy and destroy our prosperity.”
From Water to Oil: The Broader Energy Picture
Turning the discussion toward California’s oil industry, Ring linked the state’s energy policies to the same anti-development mindset that cripples its water management. He cited recent research from a Berkeley professor and graduate team that analyzed methane emissions across Los Angeles County.
“The study found that methane isn’t coming from active drilling or refining,” he explained. “You get maybe one or two percent of the methane in the atmosphere from the active oil industry. A lot of it’s coming from landfills and dairy farms.”
Even more significant, Ring said, is the natural seepage of methane from California’s oil-rich geology. “We have this ocean of oil underneath the crust in California,” he said. “And every time the earth shifts — even underground tremors we don’t feel — oil seeps up to the surface.”
That natural process is visible at iconic sites like the La Brea Tar Pits. “Los Angeles County is sitting on more oil per square mile than anywhere else in the world,” he said. “Not the biggest reserve, but the highest density of oil in the world. And that’s what’s causing all of this leakage.”
The Case for Responsible Drilling
Ring contended that the only realistic way to reduce methane leakage is to extract the oil, not cap it. “If you cap those wells, you’re just spending a bunch of money and you’re not solving the problem,” he said. “The only way you can stop methane from leaking is to deplete the reservoirs by drilling and extracting the oil routinely.”
He criticized California’s policy of importing 75 percent of its petroleum despite still relying on oil for half its total energy supply. “Why are we importing oil from countries that have almost no labor or environmental standards at all?” he asked. “And then they put it on tankers burning bunker fuel — the filthiest fuel — and ship it across the ocean. It makes no sense.”
Ring argued that expanding local production could achieve multiple goals: creating high-paying jobs, stabilizing local economies, and reducing natural methane emissions. “If we drilled here, we’d create tens of thousands of really good jobs,” he said. “We’d also have an opportunity to stop all of these leaks.”
The same principle applies to offshore oil. “In the Santa Barbara Channel, it’s the same thing — oil seeps up naturally,” he said. “The natural seepage of oil out of the ground can only be mitigated by drilling the oil and using it.”
Kern County, Long Beach, and California’s Energy Future
For Ring, California’s refusal to utilize its own energy resources has devastating local consequences. “If they shut down the oil in Los Angeles County, which they’re trying to do, just like they did in Santa Barbara County, the city of Long Beach goes bankrupt,” he warned. “The county of Kern County goes bankrupt. All of these jobs go away — and there’s no good reason.”
He called on policymakers to provide certainty to the energy industry. “Bring back the drilling rigs,” he said. “They’ve all gone to Texas and Brazil. They’re not going to come back unless they know they’ll get at least 20 years before someone tries to shut them down again.”
Ring’s message was clear: California’s prosperity depends on restoring balance — between environment and economy, between regulation and innovation, and between perception and reality.
Political Reality and Policy Gridlock in California
In a wide-ranging conversation with Edward Ring, Director of Energy and Water Policy at the California Policy Center, the discussion turned to the deeper political issues behind California’s ongoing crises—from energy and oil to water management and budget mismanagement.
The AgMeter host emphasized the growing frustration among Californians: “It’s bad political people along with mainstream media. You’re basically common sense versus the twilight zone here in California.” With rising costs, regulatory overreach, and persistent drought cycles, Ring argued that measures like Proposition 50 could push the state further in the wrong direction.
Prop 50 and Political Control
Ring explained that Proposition 50, if passed, could reshape congressional and legislative representation, potentially cementing one-party dominance. “Let’s say it passes and the courts don’t stop it,” he said. “There’s a real bad outcome, which is that the Democrats take over Congress—and it’s the bad Democrats.”
Ring contrasted today’s party politics with the era of “Blue Dog Democrats”—moderates of the 1990s who often supported business and infrastructure development. “You could maybe get Democrats to come to their senses,” he added, “but let’s say they don’t, and the whole United States turns into California. That’s the worst-case outcome.”
However, Ring also offered a note of optimism. He believes there’s still a chance for political realignment if voters in key regions shift their views. “If we can convince enough voters in California that there are practical alternatives to the direction we’re going in, they may vote some of these ridiculous Democrats out of office,” he said. “If we get even a modest change in voter sentiment, it won’t take much to realign the state legislature.”
Ring pointed to regions like Riverside County and San Bernardino County, where Republican presidential candidates have previously won. “If those votes get diluted across new districts, ironically, Democrats might lose control,” he noted. “So there’s a dark side, but also a light side to Prop 50. They’re taking a risk—and it could backfire.”
California’s Untapped Potential
Drawing a parallel between sports and politics, the AgMeter host remarked, “Every school administration that doesn’t support sports has a poor sports program. California’s the same way—our leadership isn’t supporting the state.”
Ring agreed that California still has immense potential. “This is a resource-rich state with a lot of people who know how to make things better if they get the chance,” he said. Despite years of regulatory decline, he emphasized that agriculture and logging are “down, but not out.”
He also highlighted growing discontent in Silicon Valley. “The high-tech community was reliably liberal for decades, but they’re changing,” Ring said. He cited figures like Elon Musk and Larry Ellison, who have moved operations out of California or openly criticized state policies.
Even liberal billionaires are encountering bureaucratic roadblocks. Ring referenced a San Francisco development project championed by Steve Jobs’ widow, which aimed to be sustainable and include low-income housing. “They thought they were doing everything right,” Ring said, “but environmentalists stopped it cold. People like that are waking up—and they’re powerful.”
Ring believes innovation could turn things around. “We have the technology and the brains here,” he said, envisioning future robotic dredging systems that could restore a million acre-feet of lost reservoir capacity. “California could have its best days ahead if we let smart people work and innovate.”
Leadership and the Future of the State
When asked if he’d ever considered running for office, Ring was candid. “No, I haven’t,” he replied. “There’s definitely a shortage of people who should run for office but don’t. Business people aren’t running the way they used to because special interests have taken over the state.”
He pointed out that national donors have written off California, funneling money instead to battleground states. “Until we get enough good candidates who can explain how to fix things—not just what’s wrong—we won’t see change,” he said.
Ring mentioned names like Rick Caruso and Steve Hilton as examples of potential leaders who combine business acumen with reform-minded vision. “I think Caruso could run the state. Hilton too. They’d be a lot better than what we’ve had.”
Executive Power and Policy Reform
Looking ahead to 2026, the conversation turned to whether a new governor could make rapid changes to California’s energy and water policy. Ring was clear: “Yes. You can’t do everything as governor, but you can do a lot. Newsom proved that.”
He outlined the significant executive authority available to a reform-minded governor. “You can eviscerate the boards that control agencies. You can fire and replace directors and general managers,” Ring said. “You can issue executive orders and strategically target legislators who are open to common-sense policies.”
Another key step, Ring added, would be breaking the Democratic supermajority that currently overrides gubernatorial vetoes. “The veto power is a powerful tool. A good governor could use it to stop bad legislation and start pushing for real reform.”
Ring also emphasized collaboration with Washington. “If we had a rational administration, a governor could bring in federal funding for water and infrastructure projects,” he said. “The right governor—one who uses executive authority effectively—could make a huge difference in just a few years.”
Rethinking the Water and Climate Debate
As the conversation between AgMeter and Edward Ring, Director of Energy and Water Policy at the California Policy Center, reached its conclusion, the discussion turned toward one of California’s most controversial topics—climate change and water management.
Ring shared findings from a new analysis his team conducted in partnership with several research groups. While the study has yet to be released, he previewed some striking conclusions. The researchers compared historical climate station data with the U.S. Drought Monitor’s reports—federally funded assessments that map drought conditions across the country.
According to Ring, when comparing the 21st century to the 20th century, the data tells a much different story than what the public often hears. “We found virtually no difference between the two centuries so far,” Ring explained. “If you adjust for the urban heat island effect, temperature hasn’t changed at all. Humidity hasn’t changed. Rainfall patterns remain essentially the same.”
He added that the dramatic drought maps frequently shown by the media—filled with shades of red, orange, and yellow—do not align with raw station data. “These alarmist reports are grossly biased,” he said. “They’re designed to send a message, but the methods aren’t transparent, and when you look at the data independently, you can’t reproduce their results.”
Calling Out Climate Alarmism
Ring argued that the dominant climate change narrative has become a “core premise” that few are willing to challenge for fear of professional or political backlash. “It’s a gamble,” he said. “As soon as you question the narrative, a lot of people will write you off. But it’s a gamble we have to take—because it’s the truth. We are not in a climate crisis.”
AgMeter responded with passion, agreeing that Californians must wake up to how public funds are being spent. “We’re giving taxpayer money to people who are doing nothing but scaring the world,” he said. “This hasn’t really changed since Jesus was in middle school. These are facts, not fantasies.”
A Balanced Approach to Environmentalism
Despite their criticism of climate extremism, both Ring and AgMeter emphasized the importance of legitimate environmental protection. “Nobody wants to destroy the environment,” Ring said. “We don’t want air or water pollution, and we don’t want to wipe out species.”
He warned, however, that when environmental policies become too extreme, they risk sparking a backlash that could harm the very ecosystems they aim to protect. “You risk an overreaction when you cram something down people’s throats and destroy their prosperity and freedom,” Ring said. “We’ve lost that balance, and hopefully we can restore it without overreacting.”
AgMeter echoed the sentiment: “Let’s clean up our environment. Let’s stop throwing trash everywhere. Let’s clean up our communities first—then we can worry about everything else.”
Looking Forward: Hope for California
As the conversation wrapped up, both agreed that California’s challenges—whether water, energy, or environmental—can be overcome with practical, fact-based leadership. “You bring up so many positive notes that California can be great again,” AgMeter said.
Ring smiled at the optimism. “Thank you, Nick. Anytime.”
With that, the episode closed on a hopeful note: that California’s future lies not in fear or politics, but in restoring balance—between progress and preservation, prosperity and responsibility.