Interesting article, but I feel like I am missing something here. According to the article, California can accommodate maybe another year or two of drought, so beyond that would be a problem? Also, the drought it causing the farmers to further deplete the depleting aquifers. So I'm not seeing how this is "winning the drought." It sounds more like maintaining the current unsustainability through better irrigation and depleting aquifers, but when the aquifer is gone it's going to be bad.
I think the article is trying to point out the things being done right, while also acknowledging the problems that still exist. You can only operate at a loss for so long before you need to fold up shop, no matter the ways you minimize that loss.
And says exactly nothing. Say the US economy has barely grown by 0.1 %. If California's economy would have grown by 0.2%, it would have grown 100% faster than the country's economy.
GDP growth for the US has been at 2.2-2.4 for the last 3 years[1]...if California is growing 25% faster, it isn't huge but it isn't negligible, either.
