US Government Induced Drought

[Shady]

So Obama (who in my opinion often bends the truth) showed up in California today, with some government handouts for the little people that have been significantly effected by the current "drought." He also showed up to blame said drought on the nastiness of so-called global warming. Unfortunately for him, and more importantly the people that have been effected, nothing is further from the truth.

The one thing that will mitigate droughts in California a permanent feature of the state is to restore the water flow from California's water-heavy north to farmers in the central and south.

...

Environmental special interests managed to dismantle the system by diverting water meant for farms to pet projects, such as saving delta smelt, a baitfish. That move forced the flushing of 3 million acre-feet of water originally slated for the Central Valley into the ocean over the past five years.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021414-690216-failure-to-use-water-infrastructure-is-destroying-farms.htm?p=2

Californian's had their water taken from them, not by global warming, but by a federal judge, and the federal government, who put baitfish ahead of real people. But this is the way enivronmentalist extremeists work in all facets of life. They do the same with the economy as well. Destroying entire industries, like energy and manufacturing. While at the same time, bemoaning the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the loss of the middle class. It's akin to a man that beats his wife, all the while professing his love for her. This stuff has to stop.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Shady

[Michael Hardner]

Big picture, do you really think environmentalists are worse for the environment than industry ? Do you think that they, as stakeholders, should stay out of the debate ? Or is this example an exception ?

I'm just trying to discern whether the point is: "beware environmentalists, they're not 100% right all of time, and good intentions don't always produce good results" or, rather "the environmental movement is evil, and should be suppressed by the government, destroyed, and replaced by a panel of mining executives"

[TimG]

Do you think that they, as stakeholders, should stay out of the debate ? Or is this example an exception?

The issue in this case is laws brought in to appease enviros no longer give politicians the power to decide whether people or creatures should be given priority. This is wrong. It is no big deal if a single species goes extinct if the economic costs of keeping it around are too high. Laws need to be written in ways that ensure that elected representatives and not the courts have the final say on these kinds of cost benefit analyses. Edited February 16, 2014 by TimG

[sharkman]

If the crops are as drastically affected as is projected, prices are going up big time. This area of California is one of the major breadbaskets of the nation. Farmers are selling off their herds and leaving large percentages of their land fallow. Food shortages, rising prices, and an unemployment rate in the region up to 40% all spell tough times for a state that is going bankrupt. Barry wants to pass out money but what he should do is rescind the water diversion for these fish so irrigation of farmland can resume.

The same type of environmentalist meddling several years before Katrina stopped upgrades to the levees around New Orleans due to some small bird native to the area. Shutting down oil rich lands to exploration in Alaska due to reindeer which would wander around somewhere else, has had major ramifications to gas and oil prices in the last decade. And now Californians, already hit hard with serious economic issues, are going to have food shortages. Way to go tree huggers.

Edited February 16, 2014 by sharkman

[eyeball]

What about all the things that rely on freshwater and bait fish, like other animals and fish and the fishermen and the hundreds of communities up and down the coast populated by hundreds of thousands of people and business' that rely on fishermen for their economic livelihood?

What about the fact this sort of conflict is happening all around world's coastlines and what about the hundreds of millions of human beings who rely on seafood?

Laws need to be written in ways that ensure that elected representatives and not the courts have the final say on these kinds of cost benefit analyses.

What happened to the laws and elected representatives that were supposed to ensure people had the right to eat healthy seafood and maintain the intact ecosystems this requires? They were usurped by an economic paradigm of endless growth, a paradigm that needs to die if we're to survive, that's what.

How about if California eats all it's slackers who can't roll up their sleeves fast enough top keep up with automation and the race to the bottom?

[TimG]

What about all the things that rely on freshwater and bait fish, like other animals and fish and the fishermen and the hundreds of communities up and down the coast populated by hundreds of thousands of people and business' that rely on fishermen for their economic livelihood?

That is why one does a cost benefit analyses. Most likely trade offs and sacrifices will be required but there is no reason why the preservation of a single species should trump all other concerns. Edited February 16, 2014 by TimG

[sharkman]

What about all the things that rely on freshwater and bait fish, like other animals and fish and the fishermen and the hundreds of communities up and down the coast populated by hundreds of thousands of people and business' that rely on fishermen for their economic livelihood?

What about the fact this sort of conflict is happening all around world's coastlines and what about the hundreds of millions of human beings who rely on seafood?

What happened to the laws and elected representatives that were supposed to ensure people had the right to eat healthy seafood and maintain the intact ecosystems this requires? They were usurped by an economic paradigm of endless growth, a paradigm that needs to die if we're to survive, that's what.

How about if California eats all it's slackers who can't roll up their sleeves fast enough top keep up with automation and the race to the bottom?

How about you make a coherent point instead of whatever shot gun approach you are attempting? There aren't droughts happening "all around the world's coastlines", so perhaps you could stick with what IS happening?

I don't think cannibalism is going to solve the problem either, any other ideas?

Edited February 16, 2014 by sharkman

[kimmy]

After doing some looking into this Smelts issue:

-this is the driest year in California since 1580. You can't blame that on smelts. All of California is under drought, not just the Central Valley area served by water diversion.

-the reduced diversion from northern California was not just done to protect smelts, it was done to protect the entire Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (or California Delta) ecosystem, which was seeing plummeting fish stocks due to the massive amount of water being diverted to southern California farms. 2/3 of California's commercial fish come from this ecosystem. The california delta smelt might be the only species in danger of extinction, but the whole ecosystem is suffering.

-the fight over water diversion in California is not new to this year, or to the Obama administration. Debate over the destruction of the California Delta ecosystem goes back to at least 2004, and probably far longer.

-among those who are crying loudest are Central Valley farms growing water-intensive crops like almonds and pistachios. Maybe Central Valley farms should be moving towards crops that are less dependent on water being diverted from northern California for their survival.

While there is a political fight over water diversion in California, claiming that "the government made this drought" is utter falsehood. And representing the efforts to preserve the California Delta ecosystem as being about "a 3-inch fish" is a deliberate attempt to minimize the damage being done to the California Delta by diverting water south. There is a very real political aspect to this, a fight over an increasingly scarce resource. And right now dramatic pictures of cracked fields and headlines about 3-inch smelts have given the southern California agriculture a political edge in that fight.

-k

[TimG]

And representing the efforts to preserve the California Delta ecosystem as being about "a 3-inch fish" is a deliberate attempt to minimize the damage being done to the California Delta by diverting water south.

If the court ruling was based on the need to preserve the 3 inch fish then it is about a 3 inch fish. Your arguments that there are bigger issues have merit but those are part of the political discussion - a discussion that should not be short circuited by the enforcement of arbitrary laws like the endangered species act. Edited February 16, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

How about you make a coherent point instead of whatever shot gun approach you are attempting? There aren't droughts happening "all around the world's coastlines", so perhaps you could stick with what IS happening?

There are people and communities that rely on naturally functioning ecosystems being put out of business all around the planet for very similar reasons; those all too often being, powerful interests who rely on big governments to dispossess them of the things they need to survive.

Are you suggesting that the dispossessed will be exempt from rolling up their sleeves? I doubt it, in fact I expect a lot of the people supporting their dispossession to sneer down their nose at them like Tea Partiers do to crippled homeless people.

I don't think cannibalism is going to solve the problem either, any other ideas?

How about treating southern California like a homeless crippled person at a Tea Party?

[eyeball]

If the court ruling was based on the need to preserve the 3 inch fish then it is about a 3 inch fish. Your arguments that there are bigger issues have merit but those are part of the political discussion - a discussion that should not be short circuited by the enforcement of arbitrary laws like the endangered species act.

Except, the Endangered Species Act itself was the result of years of political discussion and now you want to short-circuit that....

...arbitrarily, of course.

Edited February 16, 2014 by eyeball

[sharkman]

This is a serious situation, no doubt, but to just accept that they were accurately measuring rainfall in 1580, or have some accurate means of suggesting how much rain fell in california over 400 years ago and almost 300 years before California became a state, is rather trusting.

There have been political squabbles over water there for many years, but the environmentalist effort is relatively new.

[sharkman]

... in fact I expect a lot of the people supporting their dispossession to sneer down their nose at them like Tea Partiers do to crippled homeless people.

How about treating southern California like a homeless crippled person at a Tea Party?

I love it! LOL! Keep it coming weirdo!

[TimG]

Except, the Endangered Species Act itself was the result of years of political discussion and now you want to short-circuit that....

The US federal government has a habit of passing laws which are then abused by activists to push agendas that go way beyond the original intent of the laws. Whether we are taking about the EPA regulations on CO2 or the endangered species act it does not change. Edited February 16, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

The US has a habit of passing laws which are then abused by activists to push agendas that go way beyond the original intent of the laws.

I know exactly what you mean. I recall how Ottawa pushed thousands of BC trollers off the water to accommodate the effort to restore salmon populations to US rivers like the Sacremento.

California fishermen in the meantime just went to Alaska to catch BC's salmon.

Fair's fair I guess.

[kimmy]

This is a serious situation, no doubt, but to just accept that they were accurately measuring rainfall in 1580, or have some accurate means of suggesting how much rain fell in california over 400 years ago and almost 300 years before California became a state, is rather trusting.

There have been political squabbles over water there for many years, but the environmentalist effort is relatively new.

Well, they've been keeping records since the 1840s, so they know this drought is the worst in at least 170 years.

And they can measure rings in trees. Narrow rings indicate years when water was scarce. And they can study sediment layers and deposits of shells in riverbeds and things like that as well.

Regardless, whether its 1580 or 1840, this is the worst drought in a very long time, and claiming Obama and the smelts caused it is false.

-k

[sharkman]

Well, they've been keeping records since the 1840s, so they know this drought is the worst in at least 170 years.

And they can measure rings in trees. Narrow rings indicate years when water was scarce. And they can study sediment layers and deposits of shells in riverbeds and things like that as well.

Regardless, whether its 1580 or 1840, this is the worst drought in a very long time, and claiming Obama and the smelts caused it is false.

-k

I am not blaming the drought on Obama, I am saying that his policies along with the meddling of militant environmentalists have worsened the situation, as they did with the New Orleans levees before Katrina and the oil supply coming out of Alaska.

[Remiel]

The re-evaluation of the appropriate level of irrigation is the right thing here. All you need to know about California agriculture is the mere idea that we could pipe them water all the way from Canada so that they can keep agriculture completely unsuited for their own environment going.

[kimmy]

Obama and the environmentalists wrecked the New Orleans levees too?

-k

[eyeball]

I love it! LOL! Keep it coming weirdo!

You really don't get the notion that the world is an inter-connected thing do you? It just is what it is.

[sharkman]

You really don't get the notion that the world is an inter-connected thing do you? It just is what it is.

Uh, that's not at all what you said in your diatribe about people sneering down their noses.

Edited February 16, 2014 by sharkman

[eyeball]

The re-evaluation of the appropriate level of irrigation is the right thing here. All you need to know about California agriculture is the mere idea that we could pipe them water all the way from Canada so that they can keep agriculture completely unsuited for their own environment going.

Southern California could also carry it's own weight in the world and build desalination plants.

[eyeball]

Uh, that's not at all what you said in your diatribe about people sneering down their noses.

That just reflected what often happens when the discussion involves dispossessed fishermen. You've never noticed that either?

You miss a lot don't you?

[bush_cheney2004]

Southern California could also carry it's own weight in the world and build desalination plants.

Or Canadians could stop insisting on fresh lettuce in January.

[sharkman]

That just reflected what often happens when the discussion involves dispossessed fishermen. You've never noticed that either?

You miss a lot don't you?

Tell you what, when people like you fill their posts with knee jerk nonsense, then the rest is not worth reading. Lift those knees high though.