Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...lol...indeed. My "lack of knowledge" aside. Rice is, also, key, in most Asian food. Key diet, actually. A staple. Sushi, is a specialty. And requires rice. There is, another, particular, Japanese fish dish, which requires a certain fish, brined with rice, that I don't recall the name of. Perhaps you can help. I do know, when a fresh keg is broke open, its not a good place to be down.wind of.
Well what is important is that you now know accept that rice is a crucial part of sushi, so your statement was a slightly inaccurate.
The first thing that comes to mind is something called Kusaya, in that it has a powerful odor, however I'm not entirely familiar with the preparation methods and seem to recall salt is the basis, so other than the odor I don't think this really fits with your description. Preserving fish with rice is where sushi originated.
From what I have seen its not so much farms that have changed ;in fact they use water more efficiently than ever. Its the growth in population being served by limited water. This draught may get to 1950 levels and its the population numbers that will make the effect worse. California should have addressed this issue as many like countries have in a coastal area rather than always having pie in the sky train dreams. The problem would be not just water but homes in dangerous dry areas with a lot of kindle nearby.
So here in California we live in an area that is always going thru a drought. Years ago, in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, maybe earlier, we started building aqeducts within the state to move water and refill aquifers. This was done because everyone knew that we would need to save water in times when it did not rain or snow. Everyone was happy because in times of draught we would have water stored for later use. Then again that was when the state had less than half the people it has now. Those projects stopped in the mid 80's as the legislature became more liberal. By the 90's we were becomeing an environmentalist mecha. Water retentions programs were scaled back because of the possible damage to a few fish. People or the needs of people were put behind these animals. You can look up Delta Smelt for one, a fish that no one eats. As the government became overwellmingly liberal the pumps were turned off that fed water into our acquifers all to save the Delta Smelt. Rain water and snow run off instead were allowed to run into the ocean instead of being saved for a time when we would need the water.
What had happened is liberal politicos have created a situation in Sacramento that is hurting the entire state. Environmentalist wackos are more into saving a fish than saving people. The sad truth is that if we continue to save the few fish that get trapped in the pumps that as time goes on and the drought gets worse their will be no water for the remaining Delta Smelt and these current policies will kill off not only the Delta Smelt but other fish and wildlife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav
From what I have seen its not so much farms that have changed ;in fact they use water more efficiently than ever. Its the growth in population being served by limited water. This draught may get to 1950 levels and its the population numbers that will make the effect worse. California should have addressed this issue as many like countries have in a coastal area rather than always having pie in the sky train dreams. The problem would be not just water but homes in dangerous dry areas with a lot of kindle nearby.
Both of you should read the editorial in the Wall Street Journal that I linked in reply #32.
There are reasons beyond the Delta Smelt including the environmentalists making desalinization prohibitively expensive and laws against moving water from one part of the state to another.
It's cheaper than Jersey, I'm pretty sure. And has lower property taxes.
Oxnard is situated between Santa Barbara and Malibu in some of the most exspensive property in the nation. The only ag land in Oxnard that I could find for sale is a 12.03 acre lot for sale at an asking price of $8,400,000. In Ojai which is in the same county but a differant area they do have a 20 acre lot going for $4,200,000. In town you can find a 4,356 square foot lot for an asking price of $549,000.
I checked for land for sale in New Jersey. Forgive me for not knowing the the state of New Jersey but here is what I found. 9,2 acres with a house, imagine that a house on the land, all for $1,200,000 in Elmer, Salem County New Jersey. 5.1 acres with a house for $299,000 in Alloway, Salem County, New Jersey. 13.26 acres for $1,890,000 in Brick, Ocean County, New Jersey. 3.09 acre lot with a house for $675,000. Imagine that, it has a house on it and the house is 4,211 square feet. That is amazing.
I just don't see the prices in New Jersey as being more than they are in Oxnard. I live a mile from a gated development of homes that are situated around a golf course. Most of the homes in that devlopment are on lots that are maybe 6,000 to 8,000 square feet. These homes are between 3,000 and 4,000 square feet in size and were built between 2003 and 2007. You can not buy one for less than $700,000 and yet in New Jersey you can find a beautiful home that is 4,211 square feet on 3.09 acres, built in 2004 for under $700,000. Amazing.
I really don't have any idea what prices are for places in New Jersey. I looked at a site that advertises land to find the places that I found. Maybe you can educate me further. The site I looked at was Land Watch.
Its the growth in population being served by limited water.
Not true at all. Urban water use in CA has not increased in the past 20 years, the increased population has been offset by increased efficiency in urban use. Daily per-capita use has declined from 232 gallons a day in 1990 to 178 gallons per day in 2010.
Considering that as well as urban use only being 20% of consumption with agriculture being the other 80%, there's not really much potential for significant gains on the urban side. Even if you somehow cut urban demand in half tomorrow...that's still only cutting state water consumption 10%.
Yeah, I do not understand your point. Farmers are the people we need to get behind. What are you, some kind of shill for the government? I don't get it.
Yes, I think they need to look at the 80% the farmer uses with greater scrutiny. Why produce any more rice than is needed for domestic (California) consumption? Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas have the right climate to grow all the rice needed for US consumption and plenty for export, let them have the rice market. California and Florida are the only states that can fill our store shelves in the winter time, with fresh fruits and veggies. Those crops are important from a national prospective, and I'm sure almonds are very important from a local perspective being the most profitable crop. I'd be very upset if my Almond Joy candy bar did not have any almonds in it, or if a can of mixed nuts did not contain any almonds, people could be killed over something like that. Those crops are indispensable to the state, nation and world markets.
I'm surprised alfalfa is such a water intensive crop, it seems to grow well in semi arid states of the great plains, such as SD and MT where production is highest. Why grow any more of it than you have to in California, above and beyond what is needed for local (beef) consumption?
On the urban side, the 20% usage, what about them? I am torn on this one because I think things like golf courses, green lawns, and swimming pools are pleasures of life, things to be enjoyed, sacred things that are associated with the cultural identity of white people, and to take those things away would be like asking black people to give up basketball. We should not give these things up, California has a hot dry climate, the pool provides comfort and relief, as is true of other southern states like Florida, Texas or any other place with a hot climate. Some white people will actually cut back on food or drive a domestic sedan so they may be able to sustain a lush beautiful lawn in the American tradition. You can't ask people to give these things up. Also, sometimes people have saved their homes from wild fires by pumping water out of the pool to wet down the roof.
The solution, a collaboration between Exxon, Tyco, and the finest surfboard makers in California, to produce a new plastic water tanker barge, ultra light, energy efficient, and so safe that any drunken captain could wreck it and not hurt anybody. It would disembark with a fresh water fill up from Old Miss at New Orleans, then travel down thru the Panama Canal, and up to San Diego. David Hasselhoff should be involved with the project as well. It should have a bar with pool and lush green soccer field on deck, and solar panels, lots of solar panels. The captain should be a Cajun guy.
It looks like a rice field to me. Rice needs a lot of water to grow at first. Other valuable crops also need a lot of early water. By harvest, the need is no longer there.
The equipment may not be pretty, but it may not be archaic either. Farmers understand water wastage in California better than the average suburbanite, I'm sure- I haven't seen anyone eat their front lawn yet, and the cuttings could feed rabbits and chickens, some critters I rarely see in the suburbs.
A farmer, even the dumbest, knows he has to use his ever decreasing water supply carefully. Otherwise, there will be nothing produced on his fields but dust devils and weeds.
I'm sure there's selective enforcement going on, and I'm sure that the big boys who can holler the loudest with their checkbooks are getting more than they may deserve, but California produces nearly a third of our nation's fresh produce, dairy, and a lot of crops that are vital to the nation's health as well as the economy.
Everyone contributes, of course, but everybody eats, too. Urban Californians can't expect to get much sympathy from the lack of their water when the prices at the grocery stores all over the country go way up as the California farmers begin to fail en masse. Pictures of a rice field won't do anything favorable to your gripe if that happens.
So they should wait until their fields are completely dried up before lobbying the government to do something about it?
No. They should stop trying to grow rice in a freakin' DESERT.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
