Jeff Oslick
Final Approach
Conservation is far less expensive than building/maintaining water pipelines. That is why it is cost effective to pay people to remove their lawns. Desal is likely cheaper that new pipelines in a lot of areas too.
[A, sort of]California is desiccating![A, sort of]
- Thread starter Sac Arrow
- Start date
Conservation is far less expensive than building/maintaining water pipelines. That is why it is cost effective to pay people to remove their lawns. Desal is likely cheaper that new pipelines in a lot of areas too.
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
How about fixing the problem instead of putting a bandaid on it. The population will continue to grow and the problem will become worse with every drought....
In a many year drought "people" can not conserve enough, desal enough (currently) or let enough lawns die to fulfill the needs of agriculture and the demand for their products.
We have had this problem many times in my life, the solutions have been known, dams dams dams, yet they never seem to be built because the "crisis" always seems to pass. Unfortunately it always reappears and will until the earth quits turning.
Our elected officials keep kicking the can down the road and the Enviromaniacs block every effort when it comes to the solution.
In a many year drought "people" can not conserve enough, desal enough (currently) or let enough lawns die to fulfill the needs of agriculture and the demand for their products.
We have had this problem many times in my life, the solutions have been known, dams dams dams, yet they never seem to be built because the "crisis" always seems to pass. Unfortunately it always reappears and will until the earth quits turning.
Our elected officials keep kicking the can down the road and the Enviromaniacs block every effort when it comes to the solution.
Last edited:
Aeric
Line Up and Wait
Agree 100 percent. Build a dam, you get not only water, you get recreation in the form of boating, camping, fishing, etc. You also get clean hydroelectricity. A couple more lakes the size of New Melones would serve the state (and the nation) well.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
You also get displaced people and production land. And you have to fill the reservoirs with something. They smooth out the ups and downs; they don't make water.
It's not THAT simple.
The history of the Lexington Reservoir is rather relevant. Did you know there used to be a town of Lexington? The reservoir also destroyed the railroad town of Alma, and made the railroad to Santa Cruz permanently unrepairable.
Lexington isn't even a particularly large reservoir. And good places for a dam tend to be along rivers with a lot of water -- also very good places for agriculture.
Last edited:
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
Dams don't make water, this is true, but if we had twice the water storeage from twice the dams we would be a lot less stressed than we are now.
The dams that have been proposed anywhere near me would not displace people, although the enviromaniacs might like that vs some pine tree killing beetle. The above mentioned dams would also not take any land out of production and in fact add a lot of recreation.
It may not be 100% of the answer, but is sure as hell is better than where we are currently.......We have and are doing NOTHING to solve this ongoing problem....
What is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome..
None of that was directed at MAKG by the way, I was just ranting
Last edited:
steingar
Taxi to Parking
There is no band aid to put on this particular problem. Dams won't help, those extant are already depleted. We cannot make it rain where we wish.
Desalination plants powered with whatever vaporware you might care to dream up might work, but my guess is they'd never supply enough water. The problem is simple in its essence, we've lots of people doing intensive agriculture in what is essentially a desert.
Desalination plants powered with whatever vaporware you might care to dream up might work, but my guess is they'd never supply enough water. The problem is simple in its essence, we've lots of people doing intensive agriculture in what is essentially a desert.
Aeric
Line Up and Wait
I'm not talking about a puny little reservoir like Lexington near an urban area. More in the order of another Don Pedro or New Melones in a rural, relatively uninhabited area such as these two are in
.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Pine forest is also production. We get those pine planks at the lumber yard from somewhere, and the old growth is gone.
Most of the Sierra foothill land is national forest land or BLM land for the purpose of growing building materials, and for various mining purposes.
If it isn't national forest land or BLM land, someone owns it and is going to be displaced.
Who are you to say that your recreational uses are better than someone else's private property rights?
Land use decisions are only easy if you ignore absolutely everything. And it has always been this way. That's part of having private property rights.
Most of the Sierra foothill land is national forest land or BLM land for the purpose of growing building materials, and for various mining purposes.
If it isn't national forest land or BLM land, someone owns it and is going to be displaced.
Who are you to say that your recreational uses are better than someone else's private property rights?
Land use decisions are only easy if you ignore absolutely everything. And it has always been this way. That's part of having private property rights.
Last edited:
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
More water evaporates from reservoirs than is consumed by humans
So one could probably get almost twice as much utility out of existing reservoirs if the evaporation from them could be cut. Here is one recent (and tested) proposal to do just that by floating a thin film of an organic oil mix on the surface:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/business/2012/09/cover-story.html#
The following graphic comes from the first linked article:
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
I'm gonna pick on you a little bit. As I see it you offer no solutions to the problem only say nothing will help, it is a desert. No, it WAS a desert and with water management it is the largest variety producing agricultural area in the WORLD due to the climate and perfect soil conditions. That is how all civilizations have grown, moving water to where they want it.
The only problem is that NOTHING is even being tried or proposed. There are multiple ways from dams to pipelines to not letting 50% of the states water go into the ocean for environmental reasons...... . Again NOTHING is being done or even tried.... So the problem as I see it is with inactivity and the attitudes of the uninformed populous..
Last edited:
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Nothing is being tried because the problem is utterly untenable. States with water need it to grow their own crops. Stop water from moving into the sea and you promote an environmental nightmare. Desalination is disastrously expensive. Nothing is begin tried because there is no good solution. The only real solution is for it to start raining, and it doesn't appear to be doing so any time soon.
But again, we're talking about 5% of California's economy. Why on Earth should we propose billion dollar solutions for a million dollar enterprise?
I don't know how it is in California.... But,,,, Here in Wyoming, the treehuggers are running the National Forest and BLM.... They have drank the kool-aid and now banned all logging, recreation and other uses... Made most of the forests around here "roadless areas and wilderness"
Now the beetles have killed most of the trees and we have billions of board feet of harvestable standing dead timber just rotting instead of being logged and turned into dimensional lumber..... Absolute IDIOTS are running the show...
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
It is claimed that ~40% of Israel's domestic water comes from desalination plants. [Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
BS, I have stated at least two strategies that will work... Again, your thought process is the problem.. There is a solution and I say the cost is not that bad, depends where the state places its priorities.... How many billion will the bullet train cost and lose every year it operates????
I would question the 5% also, but as for the united states fresh fruit and vegetable production there is no doubt kalifornia is the leader. Speaking of the 5%, I wonder what percent of actual jobs in kalifornia are created or involved in agriculture. I can tell you it is a much larger percent than most think.
I would question the 5% also, but as for the united states fresh fruit and vegetable production there is no doubt kalifornia is the leader. Speaking of the 5%, I wonder what percent of actual jobs in kalifornia are created or involved in agriculture. I can tell you it is a much larger percent than most think.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
The other 60% comes from the Jordan river, which hasn't run its course in decades. The Dead Sea has shrunk dramatically in size as a result.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Try and pipe water from where I live and we'll have a nice reception for you. Stop it from going into the ocean and you invite catastrophe.
My guess is the costs are far greater than the economic benefit they'd yield. This drought has been going on for years. If the money was there those affected would have purchased water rights, or desalination plants or whatever else they need.
Maybe, but most of them are low paying manual labor. I've seen that number more times than I care to think about. We don't cry when we have a cold long winter, we deal with it. Can't understand why Californians have to whine about their weather. They don't like it, they can move.
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
Now that you mention water rights, it seems that is controlled by the densely populated cities of kalifornia who don't really give a rats a$$ about any body else's rights to water.
Since they don't have any decent local source for it, THEY take it from other much larger (area wise) less populated portions of the state, changing their economies and life styles. Nice mind set for those enlightened liberal cities
Since they don't have any decent local source for it, THEY take it from other much larger (area wise) less populated portions of the state, changing their economies and life styles. Nice mind set for those enlightened liberal cities
Last edited:
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
You mean Los Angeles?
Well, that was true 100 years ago. Not so obvious now.
Agriculture is the biggest water user in the state. And they have been bitching about restrictions on that for years. That's why the State Water Project exists. The San Joaquin Valley would be an empty desert if it weren't for that.
The argument is largely one between old agricultural interests and newer ones. The former are screwing the latter, in a big way.
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
"Water in California is shared across three main sectors.
Statewide, average water use is roughly 50% environmental, 40% agricultural, and 10% urban..."
The farmers have basically been told 0% water allocation for next year unless drastic changes happen.
That water would have been coming from the delta Mendota and aqua-duct.
Is it fair to cut one party off while sending "local" water hundreds of miles away to a different party?? It all depends an which side of the fence you are...and large cities rule the political roost..
Statewide, average water use is roughly 50% environmental, 40% agricultural, and 10% urban..."
The farmers have basically been told 0% water allocation for next year unless drastic changes happen.
That water would have been coming from the delta Mendota and aqua-duct.
Is it fair to cut one party off while sending "local" water hundreds of miles away to a different party?? It all depends an which side of the fence you are...and large cities rule the political roost..
Last edited:
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
"The farmers" means only those interests who acquired rights after 1914.
The older ones have unlimited (actually, uncontrolled) "allocations," and changing that requires new state laws.
THAT'S why the "allocation" is zero. It actually isn't. All the available water is given to pre-1914 agricultural interests.
Go fly over the area in question. You will find some green fields. Those are the folks who are taking the water. Legally, and without any "zero allocation" lie.
Saying it's due to the city people is wrong. There is a big user that is never included, because it isn't even metered.
Saying it's due to environmentalists is head scratching. There is no way to meter water not taken from the rivers, and anyone who claims they know half the water in California is not used is pulling that figure out of their butt.
The real problem is that water rights granted on the San Joaquin watershed are a whopping nine times its total flow. No matter how much is given to almond growers, they are going to get screwed. California water rules are arcane at best and were designed to settle a really old fight between agricultural and mining interests dating back to the Gold Rush. If you think there is a simple answer here or any single party to blame, you do not understand it, full stop.
The older ones have unlimited (actually, uncontrolled) "allocations," and changing that requires new state laws.
THAT'S why the "allocation" is zero. It actually isn't. All the available water is given to pre-1914 agricultural interests.
Go fly over the area in question. You will find some green fields. Those are the folks who are taking the water. Legally, and without any "zero allocation" lie.
Saying it's due to the city people is wrong. There is a big user that is never included, because it isn't even metered.
Saying it's due to environmentalists is head scratching. There is no way to meter water not taken from the rivers, and anyone who claims they know half the water in California is not used is pulling that figure out of their butt.
The real problem is that water rights granted on the San Joaquin watershed are a whopping nine times its total flow. No matter how much is given to almond growers, they are going to get screwed. California water rules are arcane at best and were designed to settle a really old fight between agricultural and mining interests dating back to the Gold Rush. If you think there is a simple answer here or any single party to blame, you do not understand it, full stop.
Last edited:
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
This problem is never going to go away, ever.......The answer, as I see it, is not difficult or impossible, the will to do it, not so much....
Kalifornia grows somewhere around 50% of the nations fruits and vegetables, no one else does this... If America wants to keep eating, well you get it. A solution can be found.
Like I said my father is a farmer, I know many farmers, I know what water they receive now vs before, where it comes from, where it goes, what it used to cost vs what it cost now...
If you were in business and the cost per acre foot went from $40 to $1000 how would that impact you, that is if you can get it.
Don't believe 99% of what you see in the news and read in the papers. The numbers quoted are usually BS.
Here is an example from the main stream mass media, and a blatant lie...
Washington post
Agriculture is 80 percent of water use in California. Why aren’t farmers being forced to cut back?
Kalifornia grows somewhere around 50% of the nations fruits and vegetables, no one else does this... If America wants to keep eating, well you get it. A solution can be found.
Like I said my father is a farmer, I know many farmers, I know what water they receive now vs before, where it comes from, where it goes, what it used to cost vs what it cost now...
If you were in business and the cost per acre foot went from $40 to $1000 how would that impact you, that is if you can get it.
Don't believe 99% of what you see in the news and read in the papers. The numbers quoted are usually BS.
Here is an example from the main stream mass media, and a blatant lie...
Washington post
Agriculture is 80 percent of water use in California. Why aren’t farmers being forced to cut back?
Last edited:
As the watermaster for the Enterprise ditch , I am up to speed on our lingo.
We use adjudication , not allocation.
As for pecking order, we use "senior water rights" and " junior water rights"
My ditch is adjudicated 21 CFS = 7.48 gallons X 21 X 60 seconds. So I am allowed to pull 157 gallons a second, or 9424 gallons a minute from the Gros Ventre River.... I usually draw and distribute about 600 million gallons to 155 end users ( water rights holders) over the water season ( May15 - Oct 31)...
My ditch was commissioned in Aug of 1899... The Senior ditch downstream was commissioned in June of 1899.... When the river is flowing more then 40 CFS at the entrance of my headgate, I can use all 21CFS.. If the river is flowing less, I have to reduce my consumption by whatever amount so as to satisfy the the Senior rights...
We can and do meet to trade off water intake daily to leave water in the river for the fish when the river is running low. It is pretty well spelled out on who gets what...
It sounds like California is a broken system with various loopholes and that lets opportunistic and greedy people to exploit their leveraged interest...
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
We call water masters ditch tenders or used to, maybe different now
We have sr vs jr rights (corrected from makg)
We use allocation not adjudication.
We by water by the acre foot, that is one acre one foot deep in water.
Remember we are over here on the left coast
We have sr vs jr rights (corrected from makg)
We use allocation not adjudication.
We by water by the acre foot, that is one acre one foot deep in water.
Remember we are over here on the left coast
Last edited:
We call water masters ditch tenders.
We have no sr vs jr rights
We use allocation not adjudication.
Remember we are over here on the left coast
Thanks for the clarification sir.....
And remember.... The Green river headwaters are on my ranch here in Wyoming.. and that drains into the Colorado River which feeds California....
So , be nice or I will go out and take a leak in my small stream..
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
LOL, you don't have any idea how many times I peed in the aqua-duct when I was young and thought, hmmmm los angeles
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
We call water masters ditch tenders.
We have no sr vs jr rights
We use allocation not adjudication.
We by water by the acre foot, that is one acre one foot deep in water.
Remember we are over here on the left coast
Umm, there are several errors in here.
We do have senior water rights. You're describing the State Water Project allocation for junior rights allocated after 1914. If that's all there were, the problem might be simpler.
LOL, you don't have any idea how many times I peed in the aqua-duct when I was young and thought, hmmmm los angeles
....
.I am gonna add you to my friends list...... No Charge..
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
The Green river headwaters are on my ranch here in Wyoming.. and that drains into the Colorado River which feeds California....
So , be nice or I will go out and take a leak in my small stream..
You might have a new neighbor in a few years, kalifornia is not the same place it was 40 years ago, or at least where I live, I think it is time for me to leave. Actually RUN
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
Mache nix, there is not enough water period. Solutions (storage, etc) is the remedy.
Farmers were buying land for water rights so they could irrigate other land that had a bigger need for it. Maybe that is sr vs jr or something similar, they just wanted and needed water.
Stand corrected on the jr vs sr.
Last edited:
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Macht nichts?
You have two classes of users in line ahead of you -- senior and riparian. That's why you get nothing. They take it all. And they can -- and do -- use it for very water intensive crops such as rice.
A more equitable allocation might leave you with something.
This makes the problem a lot worse for the majority of users who get SWP water with junior rights. Seems to make a bit of difference to me. A LOT more than blaming urban users who only account for 20% of use (or 10% if you use the agricultural lobby numbers).
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
My German isn't what it once was, in fact it's pretty much gone
We knew many years ago water was going to be a precious commodity, and the wars would happen. We also knew years ago something must be done, still hasn't happened.
I met a lawyer from the LA area at a wedding about 20 years ago, he was working on the water laws, didn't like his position on the matter
We knew many years ago water was going to be a precious commodity, and the wars would happen. We also knew years ago something must be done, still hasn't happened.
I met a lawyer from the LA area at a wedding about 20 years ago, he was working on the water laws, didn't like his position on the matter
Florida Cracker
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 12,360
- Display Name
Display name:
Florida Cracker
My German isn't what it once was, in fact it's pretty much gone
We knew many years ago water was going to be a precious commodity, and the wars would happen. We also knew years ago something must be done, still hasn't happened.
I met a lawyer from the LA area at a wedding about 20 years ago, he was working on the water laws, didn't like his position on the matter
Was his name Moonbeam?
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
No..LOl, My late god father was politically connected on both sides in san francisco, I think I might have met him at lunch one time eons ago.
Dav8or
Final Approach
I don't know how it is in California.... But,,,, Here in Wyoming, the treehuggers are running the National Forest and BLM.... They have drank the kool-aid and now banned all logging, recreation and other uses... Made most of the forests around here "roadless areas and wilderness"
Now the beetles have killed most of the trees and we have billions of board feet of harvestable standing dead timber just rotting instead of being logged and turned into dimensional lumber..... Absolute IDIOTS are running the show...
This is always the case with land management these days. Somewhere you need a pragmatic land czar that can see all the angles and make the calls. You need someone to listen to the idiot environmentalists and also the ass hole capitalists and make decisions that will make neither happy, but be in the best interest of land and the people.
Environmentalists want the land to return to some ideal of the 18th century and capitalists would cut every last tree down, or dig up half the mountains if would make their 3rd quarter earnings look good. Cutting trees for lumber is good. Saving trees for nature is good. Having a cool head to say when and which trees should be cut is hard.
Sadly, it is all politics and graft. Power, influence and money have their way.
Florida Cracker
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 12,360
- Display Name
Display name:
Florida Cracker
I spent some time in Israel looking at how they integrate agriculture into the existing landscape and found their methods of using and conserving water to be very old fashioned, but common sense at the same time. Their farms produce enormous amounts of food for the conditions, which is why the bleeping muslims are so damned jealous and aggressive about getting their hands on Israeli lands.
Dav8or
Final Approach
YES. And this is why desalinization plants make more sense than building loads of reservoirs all over the place. The densely populated areas of California are mostly on the coast... next to a never ending supply of water. Leave the natural snow pack and rainfall water source for the rest of California.
How to pay for it?
- Kill the idiot bullet train and transfer the money.
- Kill the idiot twin tunnels project and transfer the money.
- Add a special tax to every new home constructed in California.
- Add a special tax any new non row crop planted.
- Add a special water construction tax to everyone's water bill.
I might add that the state is also challenged for additional power. Of course they always scream "Wind and solar!!" but they don't address the base load issue and the transmission lines to the desal plants would be too expensive and obnoxious. Nuclear is the obvious choice if you have an open mind about it.
The expense will be huge, but this tech would be far more impressive and far more relevant to the rest of the country and the world than a bullet train to Bakersfield.
Dav8or
Final Approach
Depends on how you define "fair". Most people in America define it in a populous way, meaning that which benefits the most people. Therefore yes, the large urban centers should take precedent over the farmers. The whole "farmers feed the people" argument is moot now. Food is imported from all over the country and all over the world. We won't starve.
People back in the '80s told the factory workers loosing their jobs to suck it up, "retool" retrain and learn a new trade. Maybe it's time we told California's farmers to do the same. Of course there are numerous other states in the union where you can grow food, so if farmers still want to farm, they can move, just like their forefathers did.
denverpilot
Tied Down
ROFL... I'd love to see the populist idiots pull that off.
Kick all the farmers out for "fairness" and see what the farmers in other States start charging you for your food.
Kick all the farmers out for "fairness" and see what the farmers in other States start charging you for your food.