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.
Agriculture is 2% of California's GDP and consumes 80% of it's water. That's hardly an equitable solution. As usual, government regulation is the problem, not the solution.
-------------
Of the remainder, 80 percent goes to farmers, the next most favored group — even though their output is only 2 percent of the state's GDP. Farmers don't pay anywhere close to market prices because many of them have inherited their surface water rights from their ancestors, thanks to California's system of "first come, first served." Under those rules, farms that first drew water from a river or some primary source have the right to that amount of water in perpetuity. Newer users get the leftovers, depending on when their ancestors called dibs.
This wouldn't be so bad if senior users could sell their surplus water to those who needed it. But that's not how it works. Instead, what they don't use one year, they lose the next — creating a massive incentive for overuse.
What's more, many farmers and property owners pay nothing but the cost of a well to draw groundwater — and even that is sometimes subsidized. The upshot is the classic "tragedy of the commons," with farmers in the Central Valley able to suck out water to their heart's content, endangering aquifers.
In other areas, you do have to pay for water — but the pricing is extremely skewed. Farmers in California's Imperial Irrigation District, who buy water from the Colorado River aqueduct, pay $20 per acre-feet, less than a tenth of what it can cost in San Diego. And it's all thanks to sweet deals they've obtained from the government.
a good amount of the produce I buy in the grocery store already comes from Mexico, I figure once the Oligarchs finish their takeover and turn then entire central valley into one giant orchard /vineyard all of our annual crop produce will be imported, or in my case grown in my backyard =)
First of all rivers naturally flow into the ocean, a series of dams was put in place decades ago to divert water to farmers, with the expansion of farms they wanted more. Yes the core of the issue is the smelt and other wildlife that are at the bottom of the food chain.
California has more than minnows (which are cool in their own right), it has salmon and steelhead runs, some of the most impressive mammal an bird life in the country, many of which are waterfowl, more endemic and rare plants than any other state (by a large margin), and 40 million people who, as in all semiarid regions, enjoy water recreation, and just the majestic beauty a majestic river or stream.
California has 1400 dams over 25 feet high, the largest 100 of which could flood the southern half of the state in 1 foot of water. But they are at 2-25% capacity because of drought. Capacity is not the problem. And the price of dams and diversions is far more than a minnow or two. Prior to settlement, California was the Serengeti of the lower 48, with the largest Native American populations west of the Mississippi. Because of water diversion and massive, unsustainable agricultural development the state has already lost 90% of its native wetlands, 90% of more of its native anadromous (salmon and steelhead fisheries), huge declines in all forms of wildlife, and the Central Valley is seeing ground subsidence from groundwater pumping and lack of aquifer recharge, and accumulation of toxic salts from flood irrigation on arid desert soils.
The frat party is over, and the hangover has kicked in. With a massive urban population, I strongly believe California needs to trim back irrigated ag. by 20% and build two to three (Bay Area, LA, SD?) desalinization plants to serve the massive megalopolis. The 20% cut in irrigated ag. (in the Central Valley and desert) would provide a buffer for extreme dry periods like now, allow aquifer recharge, leave a bit of water and habitat for the states unparalleled (in the USA) aquatic and riparian-dependent biodiversity, and improve life quality in the agricultural regions overall.
What Fiorina is hoping is that low information voters will buy a disingenuous story of liberal obstruction, when the exact opposite is true. You would be hard pressed to find a more overexploited, heavily plumbed, corruptly, and generally fvcked water system than in California. Most of this happened before the environmental movement was even a gleam in Al Gore's eye, and when California was staunchly republican. Moreover, most of the areas with the highest proportions of diverted water are now economic and cultural wastelands, well hidden or avoided and scorned by the coastal population. Consider the Coachella and western San Joaquin Valleys. Would you want to live there? Baking in the sun and basking in fertilizer, and drinking carcinogenic, pesticide-laden water? I didn't think so. But hey it ain't your kids, just some wetbacks (if they don't like it, they can go back to Mexico!), so enjoy that cheap lettuce, and whine some more about the crime, social services demands, and falling test scores those peasants create. The whole damn system was created by massive water diversion and farming the desert. I am not saying agriculture is bad, of that their have not been huge benefits, but their also huge social and environmental costs that the engineers and boosters did not consider.
All systems have limits, and in California, they have ignored that for a century. From the time Mulholland open the LA aqueduct in 1916, it has been a free for all, replete with chrony capitalism thrown in. Also, the Rebublican Party, with its exploit everything to grow the state mentality was in power for most of the 20th Century, so it is not like they did not have their hand at the wheel.
Putting the Golden State agriculture on a diet would not be the end of the world. It would strengthen and diversify the state in the long run. There is room for people and minnows, and the state will be better for remembering it. All good societies have a sense of proportion and common sense.
California has more than minnows (which are cool in their own right), it has salmon and steelhead runs, some of the most impressive mammal an bird life in the country, many of which are waterfowl, more endemic and rare plants than any other state (by a large margin), and 40 million people who, as in all semiarid regions, enjoy water recreation, and just the majestic beauty a majestic river or stream.
California has 1400 dams over 25 feet high, the largest 100 of which could flood the southern half of the state in 1 foot of water. But they are at 2-25% capacity because of drought. Capacity is not the problem. And the price of dams and diversions is far more than a minnow or two. Prior to settlement, California was the Serengeti of the lower 48, with the largest Native American populations west of the Mississippi. Because of water diversion and massive, unsustainable agricultural development the state has already lost 90% of its native wetlands, 90% of more of its native anadromous (salmon and steelhead fisheries), huge declines in all forms of wildlife, and the Central Valley is seeing ground subsidence from groundwater pumping and lack of aquifer recharge, and accumulation of toxic salts from flood irrigation on arid desert soils.
The frat party is over, and the hangover has kicked in. With a massive urban population, I strongly believe California needs to trim back irrigated ag. by 20% and build two to three (Bay Area, LA, SD?) desalinization plants to serve the massive megalopolis. The 20% cut in irrigated ag. (in the Central Valley and desert) would provide a buffer for extreme dry periods like now, allow aquifer recharge, leave a bit of water and habitat for the states unparalleled (in the USA) aquatic and riparian-dependent biodiversity, and improve life quality in the agricultural regions overall.
What Fiorina is hoping is that low information voters will buy a disingenuous story of liberal obstruction, when the exact opposite is true. You would be hard pressed to find a more overexploited, heavily plumbed, corruptly, and generally fvcked water system than in California. Most of this happened before the environmental movement was even a gleam in Al Gore's eye, and when California was staunchly republican. Moreover, most of the areas with the highest proportions of diverted water are now economic and cultural wastelands, well hidden or avoided and scorned by the coastal population. Consider the Coachella and western San Joaquin Valleys. Would you want to live there? Baking in the sun and basking in fertilizer, and drinking carcinogenic, pesticide-laden water? I didn't think so. But hey it ain't your kids, just some wetbacks (if they don't like it, they can go back to Mexico!), so enjoy that cheap lettuce, and whine some more about the crime, social services demands, and falling test scores those peasants create. The whole damn system was created by massive water diversion and farming the desert. I am not saying agriculture is bad, of that their have not been huge benefits, but their also huge social and environmental costs that the engineers and boosters did not consider.
All systems have limits, and in California, they have ignored that for a century. From the time Mulholland open the LA aqueduct in 1916, it has been a free for all, replete with chrony capitalism thrown in. Also, the Rebublican Party, with its exploit everything to grow the state mentality was in power for most of the 20th Century, so it is not like they did not have their hand at the wheel.
Putting the Golden State agriculture on a diet would not be the end of the world. It would strengthen and diversify the state in the long run. There is room for people and minnows, and the state will be better for remembering it. All good societies have a sense of proportion and common sense.
Fiorina is an ambulance chaser.
Since you chose not to answer any question I asked and just spout "farmers and Republicans bad", I'll ask them again:
So...was there anything inaccurate in this statement (quoted in the OP)?
Quote:
While they have watched this water wash out to sea, liberals have simultaneously
prevented the construction of a single new reservoir or a single new water
conveyance system over decades. This has happened during a period in which
California’s population has doubled. It is clear that improved or additional
infrastructure would allow for greater conservation before droughts — especially
as the population continues to explode — but California has not completed a
major water infrastructure project in 50 years.
What new water storage infrastructure has been built in the last 50 years?
What has been done to provide for additional water storage during non-drought conditions, to provide for the needs during a drought? (btw, that would be a savings account, not "upping the debt limit")
Have things been done to provide more water for the doubling population?
What viable solutions have been put in place to provide the water this increasing population demands?
Would a gradual 20% reduction in agricultural water usage (as you proposed) meet the other demands?
Has the state government done anything to address the influx of the "migrant peasants" you describe?
Desalination sounds viable, but requires massive amounts of energy to do on a large scale basis. Where would this energy come from? Coal plants? Oil/natural gas? Nuke plants? Solar might be possible, but requires massive acreage to provide the energy required, not to mention requires massive resource-extraction to construct the infrastructure involved. Hydropower? No doubt the least polluting option, but what rivers do we dam up?
Well I though she was coming around to the sensible side but I was disappointed.
Yes we they can solve the water problem with more infrastructure, more dams that's the ticket. We can go on doubling population every few decades, build golf courses and residences in deserts and other areas and never have to worry about water.
Wow! She is right, you are wrong. She is sensible, you are foolish. You are the one defending a goofy little minnow. Letting the freshwater run out into the ocean is way past stupid. Oh well, not to worry, let the liberals have control of California for a while longer and no one can or will want to live there.
Since you chose not to answer any question I asked and just spout "farmers and Republicans bad", I'll ask them again:
That is a pretty simple and partisan interpretation of my post. I made the point that California has had the most massive plumbing system in America, and perhaps the world, for half a century. A TON has been done, but most of it was completed by the 1970s in the heyday of engineering solutions. I don't hate farmers at all, unless you are saying I hate my father, but there have to be limits to how much water they can use, and how many acres they can plant in a desert. My fundamental proposal of a 20% cut would improve live quality in the farming regions. Most farmers are old and retiring or long retired (my father has passed on), and their kids do not all want to farm. Work is too hard and the returns are too unreliable. My proposal could be done through land conservancy purchase over time.
So...was there anything inaccurate in this statement (quoted in the OP)?
PLENTY. Read below.
What new water storage infrastructure has been built in the last 50 years?
Not much, but you have missed the point. The vast majority of storage capacity was exploited more than 50 years ago. The system have been oversubscribed for all that time. The only reason people are fingerpointing now, is because it is a drought. More water and plumbing solutions are not necessary. Conservation, reallocation, and perhaps desalinization are the keys. I don't think more storage is a solution. Yet, such a scheme would ruin the remaining free flowing rivers of the state.
What has been done to provide for additional water storage during non-drought conditions, to provide for the needs during a drought? (btw, that would be a savings account, not "upping the debt limit")
As I said, California has MASSIVE storage capacity. That is not the limitation. Increasing the size of your gas tank won't get you across town with no water.
Have things been done to provide more water for the doubling population?
Conservation, reallocation, and perhaps desalinization are the keys. I don't think more storage is a solution.
What viable solutions have been put in place to provide the water this increasing population demands?
Desalinization.
Would a gradual 20% reduction in agricultural water usage (as you proposed) meet the other demands?
Yes, a 20% reduction in agriculture would have a huge effect. I am not sure it would do everything, but it would go a long way.
Has the state government done anything to address the influx of the "migrant peasants" you describe?
Plenty, but that is a bigger topic than I want to discuss here. Suffice it to say that big ag. depends upon them, and in much of California, the farming landscape have little in common with the Midwest. They depend upon migrant labor and all that entails.
Desalination sounds viable, but requires massive amounts of energy to do on a large scale basis. Where would this energy come from? Coal plants? Oil/natural gas? Nuke plants? Solar might be possible, but requires massive acreage to provide the energy required, not to mention requires massive resource-extraction to construct the infrastructure involved. Hydropower? No doubt the least polluting option, but what rivers do we dam up?
I don't know where desal. energy would come from. Your suggestions seem reasonable. It would undoubtedly come at an environmental cost, but it seems far wiser to place those costs near the urban centers than destroying the remaining aquatic habitat of the state.
Hydropower could well be added to some of the damns, but that is cold comfort when there is not enough flow to run them.
Agriculture is 2% of California's GDP and consumes 80% of it's water. That's hardly an equitable solution. As usual, government regulation is the problem, not the solution.
There are broken records then there are broken records...
You know no matter how screwed up government may or may not be, there are somethings that no matter how you do the math just don't add up. One of those mathematical truths is that you can't have infinite demand on a finite supply.
There are broken records then there are broken records...
You know no matter how screwed up government may or may not be, there are somethings that no matter how you do the math just don't add up. One of those mathematical truths is that you can't have infinite demand on a finite supply.
Kind of funny that the poster says the uses are way out of proportion, but claims regulation is the problem.
I agree with the bolded, but this is just another scapegoating piece by a politician (I was tempted to say right wing politician, but both sides do it), which is all we get from our leaders these days.
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.
Letting the freshwater run out into the ocean is way past stupid. Oh well, not to worry, let the liberals have control of California for a while longer and no one can or will want to live there.
