El Nino is likely, and it could be very powerful next winter (San Jose: bill, yard) - California (CA) - Page 14 - City-Data Forum

AmorphicDN · 07-25-2015, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Des-Lab

All of this saber rattling about "conserving" and "doing our part" is a crock of BS, plain and simple. I'm absolutely convinced that it's a repeat of the artifically and intentionally created electricity "crisis" of c.2000. It only took about 3 or 4 years for the truth on that scam to emerge. And I'd wager that similar stories of cronyism and corruption surrounding the drought will likewise come to light at about the end of the decade and how we are/were being fleeced.

Going after lawns and glasses in restaurants represents the "easy, low hanging fruit" target that's both highly visible and gives the immediate impression that "something's being done", which just happens to dovetail in nicely with Gov Browns personal disdain and hatred of the low density suburban lifestyle. The "management" of this crisis has absolutely NOTHING to do with conservation and EVERYTHING to do with politics and social engineering. The fact that the farmers have been given pretty much carte blanche to continue with business as usual speaks for itself. Killing off every single non-agricultural plant in the state and banning bathing completely STILL would not be a panacea for the drought.

Think about it and connect a few dots. What is the one area that mutually benefits both parties? Even though CA is primarily a Democratic state politically, it seems somewhat disingenuous that the farmers (almost all of which, large and small, are registered Republicans) continue to get free pass after free pass. The reason? The illegals. Brown has not been the least bit coy here either. He wants as many of them to come as possible. He has already granted de facto amnesty. And most people can agree that one does not 'bite the hand that feeds them'. So it effectively stacks the electorate block in favor of the Dems remaining in power for all perpetuity. What do the "poor minority" Republicans get out of it? A virtually unlimited, infinite pool of very low cost labor. We know how much in favor the GOP is of "secure borders". That is till the profit margins are affected. If opening it up means a significant boost to the bottom line, they'll happily look the other way. This has been demonstrated time and time again. So it's a win-win for both parties and in their best interests to keep the farms whole.

Same reason we haven't seen a moratorium on new housing. What party represents the builders? What party represents the ones that actually build them?

Meanwhile what are the individual, private homeowners going to do? They are pretty much powerless to do anything to push back. So we just have to bend over. We can of course pay to have our yards redone. Again, who benefits the most? Landscapers and gardeners. And what demographic is that again?

This is exactly why the REAL profligate water wasters are allowed to continue on their merry way. But I can be summoned and dragged into court for pouring a six ounce glass of water on a houseplant on a "wrong day".

And they get to flaunt it too. This is a picture I took in Tulare about three months ago. If this isn't the very crystallization of narcissistic hubris, I don't know what is.

And a recent water bill. See how I've already reduced my usage by almost half year over year?

If I catch the next person that leaves a "How To Reduce Your Water Usage" or "Call Us For Your Low Water Usage" Landscaping Needs" flyer on my door, they will have it force fed to them.

There are approximately 500,000 people in the category of California farmers and farm workers you refer as being pandered to. Substantial but not overwhelming out of a state population our size. The rub is that an estimated 2/3's are not voters. So about 150,000 - 175,000 worth courting. Given also that the industry contributes only 2-3% of state GDP, this all adds up to an unlikely cadre of conspiratorial collusion at the magnitude of risk and importance you are ascribing.

There is also the undeniable drain from agriculture on underground aquifers over the past century.

These realities do not support your conspiracy theory that the water shortage is somehow manufactured and manipulated for gain of favor. Ag is sucking the life out of California and providing relatively little in political or financial return.

Des-Lab · 07-25-2015, 04:28 PM

Be that as it may, the parts you are leaving out of your rebuttal are the aggregate amounts of water used and headcount employed by each one of those farmers. Take the average acreage and consumption by each one of those "paltry few farmers" and then come back and tell me my hypothesis has no merit.

I still think I'm a lot closer to the truth than those urging us that "brown is the new green".

A turd is also brown. That is also a fitting tribute to our sitting Governor.

luv4horses · 07-25-2015, 04:28 PM

Before anyone complains about how farmers waste water resources, maybe some of you should learn something about agriculture. People need to eat. Growing plants requires water. It also requires crops that are bred (genetics) to use low water and the least fertilizer. Crop breeders are working hard to make continual genetic improvements to crop plants.

Farming is highly technical. Each square yard of each field can be monitored for how much water it needs. Sun and wind cause minerals to rise to the top of soil and sometime some to the water is needed to wash it back deeper into the soil where it does good, not bad. Some water is used to clean your veggies after harvest or you would not buy them. It goes on and on. No farmer anywhere over uses water just to grow crops just so laborers will have jobs. Please.

Des-Lab · 07-25-2015, 04:37 PM

So how about them rice fields? Why not in an area that actually GETS rain? What about them almond orchards? Where do most of them go? Also-why aren't they grown in a region that has plentiful water? Want to come up here to the Central Valley? I'll be happy to take you for a tour and show you all the antiquated, inefficient open-valve flooding a-la that picture that STILL goes on right up today.

AmorphicDN · 07-25-2015, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Des-Lab

Be that as it may, the parts you are leaving out of your rebuttal are the aggregate amounts of water used and headcount employed by each one of those farmers. Take the average acreage and consumption by each one of those "paltry few farmers" and then come back and tell me my hypothesis has no merit.

I still think I'm a lot closer to the truth than those urging us that "brown is the new green".

A turd is also brown. That is also a fitting tribute to our sitting Governor.

I'm not really grasping your meaning here. Yes, the farmers are using a lot of water. How does that translate to why politicians might be conspiring to favor them? Politicians want support to perpetuate their egos and careers mostly. They go where they get the biggest bang for their buck and greatest head count for the vote. They wouldn't appear to get an overwhelming amount of either from such a relatively small contributor to the state economy that employs 2/3's non-voters.

I am not a political creature but I'd say Brown has been a remarkably successful governor overall.

AmorphicDN · 07-25-2015, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luv4horses

Before anyone complains about how farmers waste water resources, maybe some of you should learn something about agriculture. People need to eat. Growing plants requires water. It also requires crops that are bred (genetics) to use low water and the least fertilizer. Crop breeders are working hard to make continual genetic improvements to crop plants.

Farming is highly technical. Each square yard of each field can be monitored for how much water it needs. Sun and wind cause minerals to rise to the top of soil and sometime some to the water is needed to wash it back deeper into the soil where it does good, not bad. Some water is used to clean your veggies after harvest or you would not buy them. It goes on and on. No farmer anywhere over uses water just to grow crops just so laborers will have jobs. Please.

I'd question that Monsanto and McDaniels and DuPont and other "breeders" are "working hard to make continual genetic improvements" creating plants that use less fertilizer since selling fertilizers is their profit center. What they are breeding are plants that thrive on their specific fertilizers.

I'm also not clear on where anyone has claimed farmers overuse water to grow crops, especially just to provide jobs for laborers. Where did you read that?

AmorphicDN · 07-25-2015, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Des-Lab

So how about them rice fields? Why not in an area that actually GETS rain? What about them almond orchards? Where do most of them go? Also-why aren't they grown in a region that has plentiful water? Want to come up here to the Central Valley? I'll be happy to take you for a tour and show you all the antiquated, inefficient open-valve flooding a-la that picture that STILL goes on right up today.

You are correct in wagging your finger at almond orcharding. But you are not well informed about rice farming. Them rice fields, as you say, are at the end of the line of fresh water flow from the Delta waters. The rice paddies are formed over low lying, poorly perking, clay soils that retain water extremely well but which land isn't really suitable for other crops (in large part because of its poor drainage due to the clay) nor for commercial or residential development. The next step for that huge natural flow of water into and through the Delta system is into the salt water of the Bay and ocean. At the point of rice farming the water has no further use options. The flooding is merely spreading out the water that is running into the salt Bay. What else would you do with it at that point? It has flushed the natural eco-system. A lot has been drawn off to other agricultural and industrial purposes. What's left grows the rice but wouldn't be otherwise utilized at all.