• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drought in the west

Way I see it, there's no agriculture without water and importing water is like exporting drought. The Colorado River is already bone dry by the time it reaches the border (sorry about that, Mexico!) so what's next, pumping the Ogallala Aquifer through a pipeline? Diverting the Columbia River?
I think someone needs to look at how similar attempts to make the industry sustainable through artificial means has contributed to this situation. Why continue to insist on growing produce somewhere where there's no fresh water? Hell, I wouldn't camp overnight where there's no water.
It'll mean a period of adjustment but sometimes adjustments are necessary when what we're doing has stopped working.



Good luch diverting the Columbia River. The water sharing treaty has expired and is being renewed automatically. Obama's administration has yet to come to the table, and Washington and Oregon are begging BC to NOT implement it's best usage systems. Any discussion about diverting Columbia water to California will be hit with objection by Washington, BC, ALaska, Idaho and Oregon.

If anything, the US will be pressed to restore salmon ladders on the Columbia to restore a fishery
 
Good luch diverting the Columbia River. The water sharing treaty has expired and is being renewed automatically. Obama's administration has yet to come to the table, and Washington and Oregon are begging BC to NOT implement it's best usage systems. Any discussion about diverting Columbia water to California will be hit with objection by Washington, BC, ALaska, Idaho and Oregon.

If anything, the US will be pressed to restore salmon ladders on the Columbia to restore a fishery

Restoring a fishery makes more sense to me than diverting huge mounts of water away from agriculture to maybe save a small and insignificant smelt.
 
Restoring a fishery makes more sense to me than diverting huge mounts of water away from agriculture to maybe save a small and insignificant smelt.

I see someone doesn't understand the concept of genetic diversity.

Committing a species to extinction forever is not something we should do for short term economic benefit.
 
I see someone doesn't understand the concept of genetic diversity.

Committing a species to extinction forever is not something we should do for short term economic benefit.

Enjoy your cup of sand for breakfast.
 
Oh the drama!

This isn't about human 'survival'. It's about temporary marginal economic benefits vs. Ecosystem destruction and permanent loss of genetic diversity.

How much agricultural land is going to return to the desert?
How much more food will have to be imported to make up the difference?
How much more is it going to cost the already struggling families to feed themselves due to the price increases?

I'm glad that you are volunteering. Many of the rest of us, however, are not. When are you going to write that check to the non-profits that feed people?

The Earth is ever changing. The Earth is in a constant reduction of biodiversity. It's normal. At one time we had dinosaurs as the dominant species. That too changed.

I think this claimed biodiversity isn't as much, or as important, as you are making it out to be. If it were, the biosphere would have already collapsed several times over during the age of man, and it hasn't.

But give you a chance, none the less. Can you prove, as a fact certainty, that the extinction of the Delta Smelt would have any sort of significant impact on either biodiversity, the biosphere, or other species survival rates?
 
Since the Earth's climate goes in cycles, do you think that this mean that eventually the Cali drought will come to an end on it's own accord?

I'm hopeful that it does, but I suspect that it's far more impacted by the fact that it was a desert before man came along and so heavily watered it for a reason.

Texas: in a continuous drought interrupted by occasional flooding. We could use one about now.

Drought | StateImpact Texas
 
How much agricultural land is going to return to the desert?
How much more food will have to be imported to make up the difference?
How much more is it going to cost the already struggling families to feed themselves due to the price increases?

I'm glad that you are volunteering. Many of the rest of us, however, are not. When are you going to write that check to the non-profits that feed people?

The Earth is ever changing. The Earth is in a constant reduction of biodiversity. It's normal. At one time we had dinosaurs as the dominant species. That too changed.

I think this claimed biodiversity isn't as much, or as important, as you are making it out to be. If it were, the biosphere would have already collapsed several times over during the age of man, and it hasn't.

But give you a chance, none the less. Can you prove, as a fact certainty, that the extinction of the Delta Smelt would have any sort of significant impact on either biodiversity, the biosphere, or other species survival rates?


Oh! The drama!

Farmers on unsustainable land because of minimal water are not threatening anyones survival, and the tradeoff is more ecosystem destruction for a few more years of unsustainable farming.

I wont explain biodiversity importance to you, its basic population biology, and you need to have some baseline understanding (the earth is in a constant state of biodiversity reduction? :roll:), plus a willingness to learn about it, and i'm fairly sure you're critically short on both requirements.
 
Oh! The drama!
Which drama? I was being rather factual.

Farmers on unsustainable land because of minimal water are not threatening anyones survival, and the tradeoff is more ecosystem destruction for a few more years of unsustainable farming.

I'll grant you that it could potentially be considered as unsustainable land as far as farming might be concerned. May have to change crops to those that are more drought resistant.

I wont explain biodiversity importance to you, its basic population biology, and you need to have some baseline understanding (the earth is in a constant state of biodiversity reduction? :roll:), plus a willingness to learn about it, and i'm fairly sure you're critically short on both requirements.

Of course you won't explain yourself, or substantiate your position. I expected nothing less. And an ad hom at the end. That'd be the trifecta.
 
No, our water is in the right places. Our farms are not in the right places.

Tell you what, why don't you go buy up some of the North West temperate rain forest, where there is plenty of water, and go plant almonds. If you're right, you'll show all of those California farmers, and you'll make a fortune!
 
I'm seeing a lot of posts about the Sacramento/San Joaquin delta and wasting water to save a little fish.

Firstly, there isn't enough water in that delta to begin to water the Sacramento Valley. The "fish or farmers" mantra is an oversimplified non solution.

Secondly, it's not about the delta smelt. It's about the salmon, it's about the communities that get their water from the delta, and it's about the water not getting so brackish it's unusable.

Thirdly, the San Joaquin River, once the second biggest in California, big enough that ocean going ships plied it for 150 or so miles from the ocean. It is dry. I don't mean low or dry from the drought, I mean it is dry and has been for some 60 years now. All of the water is being used. Moreover, attempts to re water it have failed. For one thing, there isn't enough water, but for another so much has been pumped out of the aquifer that the land over which it once flowed has subsided. Re watering the river would mean making it flow uphill, which is somewhat difficult.
 
Restoring a fishery makes more sense to me than diverting huge mounts of water away from agriculture to maybe save a small and insignificant smelt.

The thing is, that small ind insignificant smelt is like the canary in the coal mine. It will do fine as long as the water in the delta is clean and not too salty. If too much is pumped, and the water gets too salty, then the smelt will die. Most of them have, in fact died off. The fish vs. farmers mantra is simply a part of the fight over what little water is available.

Whisky's for drinking. Water is for fighting over.
 
The thing is, that small ind insignificant smelt is like the canary in the coal mine. It will do fine as long as the water in the delta is clean and not too salty. If too much is pumped, and the water gets too salty, then the smelt will die. Most of them have, in fact died off. The fish vs. farmers mantra is simply a part of the fight over what little water is available.

Whisky's for drinking. Water is for fighting over.

Then probably the best summary is too many people too densely packed on land that is inherently unable to support that, at least for very long, and that'd most likely be irrespective of how much water is funneled in from other locations.

I'm waiting for the limousine liberals and Hollyweird Celebutards to bitch about not being able to fill up their pools and water their lawns and gardens, and / or the first of them being charged the fines.

I can only see the water shortage / drought as yet another stimulus to mass migration out of California. Perhaps with reduced population the water sources will be able to replenish themselves.
 
Then probably the best summary is too many people too densely packed on land that is inherently unable to support that, at least for very long, and that'd most likely be irrespective of how much water is funneled in from other locations.

Most of the water is used for growing food, not for that densely packed population. As for bringing in water from other locations, the Colombia River, for example, dumps a million cubic feet per second into the ocean. That's enough to fill California's biggest reservoir, Shasta Dam, from totally empty to full to the brim, in four days.

I'm waiting for the limousine liberals and Hollyweird Celebutards to bitch about not being able to fill up their pools and water their lawns and gardens, and / or the first of them being charged the fines.

Unless something is done about water infrastructure, you shouldn't have long to wait.

I can only see the water shortage / drought as yet another stimulus to mass migration out of California. Perhaps with reduced population the water sources will be able to replenish themselves.

Problem is, that lack of water for agriculture is going to impact the whole nation in a big way. Check the post above about what food crops are grown in California.
 
Most of the water is used for growing food, not for that densely packed population. As for bringing in water from other locations, the Colombia River, for example, dumps a million cubic feet per second into the ocean. That's enough to fill California's biggest reservoir, Shasta Dam, from totally empty to full to the brim, in four days.

If the ecomentalists and Canadian's will allow it. (Per F*L):
Good luch diverting the Columbia River. The water sharing treaty has expired and is being renewed automatically. Obama's administration has yet to come to the table, and Washington and Oregon are begging BC to NOT implement it's best usage systems. Any discussion about diverting Columbia water to California will be hit with objection by Washington, BC, ALaska, Idaho and Oregon.

If anything, the US will be pressed to restore salmon ladders on the Columbia to restore a fishery

Unless something is done about water infrastructure, you shouldn't have long to wait.

Agreed. Wonder what the fauxrage will be then? LOL. Get to laugh at imousine liberals and Celebutards from Hollyweird once again.

Problem is, that lack of water for agriculture is going to impact the whole nation in a big way. Check the post above about what food crops are grown in California.

Understood and accepted. I believe I was the one who observed that that probable end result will be the importation of the same foods from less ecologically extreme nations. I can see the left end taking the position of banning those imports for the very reason that export nations are not ecologically hell bent enough for their tastes. LOL.
 
I made some quick, unscientific calculations that could free up at least 219 billion gallons of water, perhaps more, depending on water use.

According to most calculations I've read, and I guess averaged, each person residing in California uses roughly 100 gallons of water per day.

Depending on who's calculations you want to use, California could save/reallocate 219,000,000,000 gallons of water by simply removing everyone who is living here illegally.

Just saying....

Catch 22.
Who is going to pick the crops?
 
Tell you what, why don't you go buy up some of the North West temperate rain forest, where there is plenty of water, and go plant almonds. If you're right, you'll show all of those California farmers, and you'll make a fortune!

I've got a better idea.

Let those farmers eat dust.
 
Fair enough.

And when they're out of business, what are you going to eat?

Are you under the impression that no food is or can be grown outside of California?

Yes, it's the center of produce right now,, but if strawberries suddenly tanked and couldn't be grown, I can guarantee that other states will be increasing their strawberry production dramatically after prices rise.

And will prices kill us all? No. Because I can live without strawberries and substitute blueberries or raspberries.
 
I'm seeing a lot of posts about the Sacramento/San Joaquin delta and wasting water to save a little fish.

Firstly, there isn't enough water in that delta to begin to water the Sacramento Valley. The "fish or farmers" mantra is an oversimplified non solution.

Secondly, it's not about the delta smelt. It's about the salmon, it's about the communities that get their water from the delta, and it's about the water not getting so brackish it's unusable.

Thirdly, the San Joaquin River, once the second biggest in California, big enough that ocean going ships plied it for 150 or so miles from the ocean. It is dry. I don't mean low or dry from the drought, I mean it is dry and has been for some 60 years now. All of the water is being used. Moreover, attempts to re water it have failed. For one thing, there isn't enough water, but for another so much has been pumped out of the aquifer that the land over which it once flowed has subsided. Re watering the river would mean making it flow uphill, which is somewhat difficult.

Droughts are nothing new to California. But why hasn't a single new reservoir or a single new water conveyance system over decades during a period in which California’s population has doubled been built? How much of your rainfall ends up running into the ocean?
 
Produce grown by farmers who took their place.

Maybe you didn't know this, but vegetables can be grown outside of California

Yes they can, just much more expensively. Unless you do it yourself.
 
because providing them with more water by buildiing pipeline, dams, desalinization plants, seeding clouds, etc won't cost a penny!!!

Cheaper by far than what you are suggesting, which is to start from scratch elsewhere possible multiple elsewheres. It will solve itself one way or another eventually. The farmers are starting to realize depending on the government to abide the agreements they made and do right by them is a foolish notion, they are already looking to alternative sources of water not controlled by government.
 
Cheaper by far than what you are suggesting, which is to start from scratch elsewhere possible multiple elsewheres. It will solve itself one way or another eventually. The farmers are starting to realize depending on the government to abide the agreements they made and do right by them is a foolish notion, they are already looking to alternative sources of water not controlled by government.

Really? Growing crops where the water is costs more than growing them where it isn't and building all sort of hugely expensive facilities to provide them with water?

I doubt it.
 
Back
Top Bottom