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.
No doubt you're right. But, I just wonder - what if there were no more almonds or especially rice paddies in CA. Would there be plenty of water for the people? Would the water table right itself and the little farmers' wells would have enough water again?
No doubt you're right. But, I just wonder - what if there were no more almonds or especially rice paddies in CA. Would there be plenty of water for the people? Would the water table right itself and the little farmers' wells would have enough water again?
First, we kill all the big ag conglomerates...
If there is plenty of water for the people, then more people will want to come.
Same concept as what you have written about communities that offer support for the homeless: the more benefits a place offers, the more people show up to enjoy.
If there is plenty of water for the people, then more people will want to come.
Same concept as what you have written about communities that offer support for the homeless: the more benefits a place offers, the more people show up to enjoy.
True. Okay, then we 1) get rid of the rice paddies and almonds, then 2) tell all newcomers they only get a cup of water to shower with every day.
Hmmmm, no wait, then everyone would smell like the homeless people...
While we are in agreement on the essential issue as the OP has created it - I don't read 509's statement as "not lining up". He's not made any statement of support for the aluminum industry. He made a simple observation of the disrespect of the deal. California made a grab for NW power and a major NW industry was a big loser. Whether it was a toxic industry to the environment, and whether it had a poor business plan isn't the issue. The point of 509's comment is that the NW shunted power away from home and in the end California still can't get enough to satisfy its own unsustainable demands. Which aren't a bit better for the environment nor a smart "social business plan" either.
I also hold the opinion that it would be ideal for California to handle its own power needs whenever possible. While I would have liked to say that it'd be best if power demand could have stayed flat starting from the 60s and 70s, that simply isn't a realistic expectation at all given the technological development as well as population growth that did happen. Changes to the global distribution of wealth also played a big role in increasing demand for living in California.
What I took exception to was how the post went out of its way to frame the picture as if Washington was some sort of victim or held a morally superior position. It takes two to tango in business so my intent was primarily just to point that out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
If there is plenty of water for the people, then more people will want to come.
Same concept as what you have written about communities that offer support for the homeless: the more benefits a place offers, the more people show up to enjoy.
The catch is that this approach is like the Three Strikes laws. People just don't normally think in terms of total society-wide resource consumption when they move. Cranking up only the punishment without finding a way to convince/educate people into cooperating first will not help.
That will be no small task. Think of the proportion of Americans who can't even control themselves when it comes to public littering.
Not that I'm entirely arguing for moving Columbia River water to California either. I'm about halfway: If it can be designed as a flood control feature, and will only channel water when there is excess, then why not? Years with excess water, Washington and Oregon could pick up a bit of extra cash and reduce flood damage. Years without excess water, the gates stay closed even if California becomes Mad Max with water wars.
so what do you propose we do about this population problem, TM? I'm ALL in favor of forcibly exporting all those who were not born in California prior to today whose parents were not California residents prior to 1960. You comfortable with that?
Hell, I volunteer for the job of fascist dictator in charge of expelling all who do not comply, at no salary! Send 'em to Texas!
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann
I do not disagree with your point at all.
TM's point was that California population continues to grow well past the point of having enough water to support the ever growing numbers of residents, legal of otherwise.
He's on my list, BTW, of people I would expel
Now Oscar, that's not very creative of you. Your plan is arbitrary without meaningful impact beyond simple numbers. The smart place to start is to provide direction and relocation assistance (maps and travel brochures!) for all the people who don't want to be here to begin with.
In another recent thread I posted this link: Despite some nightmares, poll finds voters still California Dreamin' - LA Times which shows nearly 25% of the state's adults would rather live elsewhere. Since many of them have children or other family who would go with, we'd see probably a rough 1/3 population exodus. And I do use the word "rough" very intentionally. Helluva start! Can you imagine the morning traffic improvement alone?
Now then, the next population to target are: the whiners who chant their incessant complaints and unhappiness but don't follow through with action. Just a wild guess here, but I'll bet upwards of an additional 15%? At least?
So no. You don't get the job. For lack of creative strategy. I get it. And, in spite of your glaring disloyalty to me, you can stay. Welcome, grouch.
In other words, power companies in the Pacific Northwest figured out that they could get a lot more money selling power to Los Angeles where there is both the demand and the money for it, despite any transmission losses involved. Why would they agree to the deal otherwise? It sounds to me like the aluminum industry up there had a flimsy business plan that was dependent on hoping that the local power companies never find a better customer.
What also doesn't line up is talking about preserving an extremely electricity-heavy industry like aluminum extraction in one breath, then preaching about environmental damage and green energy in another.
California didn't have to "steal" anything, welcome to the market as it exists in the US.
I am otherwise lined up with the message of people using less water and power in daily life.
There is little private power in Washington state that is shipped to California. It is mostly generated by the Federal and local county governments. The big dogs are the mid-Columbia public utilities and BPA (federal).
The Federal policies favoring California have had dramatic impacts on the rural Public utility districts that generate substantial electrical power. It lead to the demise of the aluminum industry and tens of thousands of high paying rural jobs.
Change in Federal policies through the political process is just a "legal" form of stealing when it is based on raw political power. The worst thieves are those that steal with a fountain pen
On the water issue. Off-shore survival of salmon is critical to recovery and the impact of Columbia River flows is probably very important. I know that California has decided to let endangered fish stocks become extinct in the near future.
What I took exception to was how the post went out of its way to frame the picture as if Washington was some sort of victim or held a morally superior position. It takes two to tango in business so my intent was primarily just to point that out.
Well, Washington WAS a victim. Whether they deserve pity or not is a different issue.
But anyway, I didn't get the sense the poster was claiming morally superior position. Just laying out factual scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute
The catch is that this approach is like the Three Strikes laws. People just don't normally think in terms of total society-wide resource consumption when they move. Cranking up only the punishment without finding a way to convince/educate people into cooperating first will not help.
That will be no small task. Think of the proportion of Americans who can't even control themselves when it comes to public littering.
Not that I'm entirely arguing for moving Columbia River water to California either. I'm about halfway: If it can be designed as a flood control feature, and will only channel water when there is excess, then why not? Years with excess water, Washington and Oregon could pick up a bit of extra cash and reduce flood damage. Years without excess water, the gates stay closed even if California becomes Mad Max with water wars.
I don't get how it's a "punishment" analogy. Refusing to share a resource isn't punishment. Especially when the beggar's needs are self-generated folly. ("Generated" Get it? Ok, bad one. Sorry. )
There is little private power in Washington state that is shipped to California. It is mostly generated by the Federal and local county governments. The big dogs are the mid-Columbia public utilities and BPA (federal).
The Federal policies favoring California have had dramatic impacts on the rural Public utility districts that generate substantial electrical power. It lead to the demise of the aluminum industry and tens of thousands of high paying rural jobs.
Change in Federal policies through the political process is just a "legal" form of stealing when it is based on raw political power. The worst thieves are those that steal with a fountain pen
On the water issue. Off-shore survival of salmon is critical to recovery and the impact of Columbia River flows is probably very important. I know that California has decided to let endangered fish stocks become extinct in the near future.
You won't see thar happening in the northwest.
Thanks for the clarification.
Regarding endangered fish, could you give me a pointer on this too? I don't follow this topic closely beyond catching articles that hit the news and your statement counters my current impression. The last I heard, the agricultural sector was still complaining about saving fish over their crops and putting up a show for cameras and the freeways of chopping down orchards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
I don't get how it's a "punishment" analogy. Refusing to share a resource isn't punishment. Especially when the beggar's needs are self-generated folly. ("Generated" Get it? Ok, bad one. Sorry. )
Puns! This one fit in quite naturally so I approve it with the all of the authority of a random guy on the Internet!
Let me change up my wording, I guess negative feedback in psychology terms would be a better way to describe what I was getting at. The idea was to make less water available to the general population, with the intended effect that "the population" as a whole will respond by not growing, right?
To better explain my thought, "the population" is not a monolith or a disciplined body by any stretch of the imagination. Populations with this characteristic are not likely to respond to negative reinforcement in the manner we would expect from individuals or coherent groups.
However it is hypothetically possible to create a semi-coherent group [on this specific issue] through awareness outreach and education. A major problem to overcome is that historically/in reality a large portion of people are typically not receptive to this kind of message, therefore making voluntary compliance toward the big picture unlikely.
What I didn't expand on earlier was my prediction that following a water denial strategy would only end up creating a situation where the population grows regardless of water availability and a crisis could end up being created. This would change the political picture from the current one that is still somewhat amicable toward responsible management sharing the environment's needs [a very generalized public sentiment], into one comprised of panicked masses demanding all of the water at any price. Or Mad Max, which would be more exciting. Consider also that political responses tend to favor addressing a crisis.
So generally, I worry a bit about a hard line stance backfiring and being counter-productive from an environmental standpoint. Although the reasons are sound, it would just be very expensive or impossible for it to work.
I do understand that a moderate management approach feels more like a slow retreat than a solution but I think this route could land within a very wide range of potential success. Management would include things like water pricing policies that discourage waste and city policies that focus on repairing water infrastructure to avoid losses from ruptures [Los Angeles].
But what fish is California willing to sacrifice as you suggested?
Senators Feinstein, Boxer, Wyden, and Merkley passed a bill dropping protection of Steelhead and Salmon in California. Wyden and Merkley joined the two California Senators in dropping protection for the Steelhead, Salmon while also cutting water supplies to wildlife refuges in California.
I really thought they would follow Clinton lead in 2000 and temporarily suspend the ESA act. However, Feinstein's bill would give priority to farming over fish. So in many ways this is much worse.
Here is the link to the article in the San Francisco paper:
Here is the key comment from NRDC on the bill. Today, the U.S. Senate passed S. 2198 (Feinstein), drought legislation that overrides protections for salmon and steelhead in California’s Bay-Delta estuary.
Here are a couple important paragraphs from the NRDC paper.
"Another provision (section 103(b)3(B)) of the bill directs the extent to which tributaries of the San Joaquin River that feed the Delta can flow backwards due to the enormous influence of the federal and state pumps that export water south. Those pumps redirect the flow of the Delta and pull millions of salmon and other fish to their death each year. By mandating that those Old and Middle River flows be managed a specific way, the bill could exclude protections for a whole host of native fish from impacts of the pumps; protections that are required under a biological opinion for threatened and endangered salmon, steelhead and sturgeon. It could also be read by some to exempt the federal pumps from complying with those state and federal protections, and shifting compliance to the state pumps alone. In that situation, this exemption would benefit recipients of the Central Valley Project water (mostly agricultural users) at the expense of State Water Project users (mostly cities and towns). This provision should be clarified to state that the federal agencies should comply with all Old and Middle River flow requirements, including those that protect our native salmon.
Other provisions of the bill could adversely affect California’s wildlife refuges, which millions of ducks and other waterfowl depend on. Widespread drought conditions are likely to have devastating impacts on California’s waterfowl and fisheries, as well as farmers, cities, and rural communities, and we need to take care not to exacerbate the effects of the drought on our native wildlife, and the communities and jobs that depend on them. "
Reading the article you can tell that NRDC is afraid of confronting the Senator on this legislation. Oregon Senators have sold out to California agricultural interests. The only hope now is that President Obama will veto the legislation.
IF California runs out of electricity this summer and has to import electricity from the Pacific Northwest it seems the handwriting is on the wall. Protections for Northwest Salmon and Steelhead will follow their California kin in suspending species protection under ESA.
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.
)
