Yes, agriculture uses 85% of the state's water. Yes, it could be much more efficient (cf. Israel). But it's a simple fact that transpiration requires water. That's the way plants work. So if you want to eat, you need to apply water, in relatively huge quantities especially in a hot, dry climate like most of California's better agricultural land has.

Then there are the collateral issues: cut back on water too much and Salton Sea dries up - bad for wildlife that have moved in. Around Fresno, for a long time, excess City-owned canal water irrigated surrounding orchards and vineyards, helping to recharge the aquifer. Of course, no good dead goes unpunished - some nasty pesticides rode into the city wells on that recharge, so they now do it differently and have had to install some serious treatment for the well water. And yes, planting a bunch of almond trees irrigated from deep wells will of course dry up shallower wells in the vicinity (that the neighbors depend on) - wrong crop at that location, and (to put it charitably) rather thoughtlessly done, but no crop would not be good either if the land is suitable for growing things.

Yes, agriculture is a small part of the California economy measured in dollars. But if you didn't have agriculture, you wouldn't have much of the rest for long. People gotta eat. So while it's an obvious big target and needs to do much better than it has at using water efficiently, don't get roped into "it's only a minor thing" implying that we really don't need it anymore - it isn't.

I don't particularly care for deep-redneck farmers, Big Corporate or otherwise, who expect a bailout from all and sundry whenever their profit margins take a hit from natural causes or market adjustments, but demand to be left strictly alone otherwise. Sorry, your predecessors actually paid for earlier irrigation systems (on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, especially) themselves through local irrigation districts that own and operate their own dams and canals. And that seem to more actively promote efficiency improvements than the ones that get their water from the great public aqueducts and ground water. Efficiency generally requires some investment with an expectation of future profit, not just fallowing land; fallow land doesn't make money. Oh yes: business in general, and the farming business especially, are based on risk - you consider whether the risks involved with your business are controllable and acceptable considering the profit potential, because sometimes *&&^* does happen, and you buy insurance for or plan to go broke and leave when it does. Unfortunately, insurance for many of the folks out there now (you know who you are) is to demand a bailout or change the rules so somebody (or something) else gets hurt. So Sorry; life just sucks once in a while.

Finally, water trains won't help with farming. They can't haul enough at a low enough price, even assuming that the sources will allow it to be exported. For relatively small-volumes (small town, institutional), emergency short-term supply, a shot by train once or occasionally can work. And the price must be paid.

Flame On!