California's water woes, solution?

[monovillage]

We've been cheating the earth to support humanity for eons. Lots of what we do irrigation-ally, agriculturally and for the basic maintenance of society everywhere threatens ecosystems. Should we stop all that too?

Then stop cheating the earth, i suggest a nice 1 inch hemp rope. Do it for Mother Earth.


Wishing death on another member is not acceptable.
admin allisolm

 

[RampantAndroid]

Should we have a nationwide aqueduct system, so that abundant water from the Pacific Northwest could be brought down to our desert?

No. Fuck your desert. It's your god damn problem that you live in one, the nation shouldn't bend over (and fuck other states up) to save the most fucked state in the union.

Look, you ALREADY pump water out of Hetch Hetchy to get San Fran its water. You're not going to wreck the PacNW which is a region that strives to have as little an effect on the ecosystem as possible.

Shut down everything south of San Fran. And while we're at it, shut down Vegas.

 

[MagickMan]

No. Fuck your desert. It's your god damn problem that you live in one, the nation shouldn't bend over (and fuck other states up) to save the most fucked state in the union.

Look, you ALREADY pump water out of Hetch Hetchy to get San Fran its water. You're not going to wreck the PacNW which is a region that strives to have as little an effect on the ecosystem as possible.

Shut down everything south of San Fran. And while we're at it, shut down Vegas.

and Phoenix.

 

[bradly1101]

Then stop cheating the earth, i suggest a nice 1 inch hemp rope. Do it for Mother Earth.

I'll get there soon enough without any of my help.

I see the inherent hypocrisy in being an environmentalist in modern society. I am after all writing this on a PC, but it is kept stock with all power savings enabled with little gaming or video conversion. I drive, but I keep it to a minimum. I recycle. I try to use as little water as possible.

So there are things one can do to pitch in, and if we all contributed, it would be a better, cleaner and longer-lasting world with cheaper energy and water prices for all (IMO).

Sadly I read an article a couple of years ago where some cities ban artificial lawns here in parched Southern California {sigh}.

 

[Darwin333]

This. Also, our nation as a whole could stand for some population reduction (reduce immigration). Sadly, the landmass can only support so many people at a comfortable standard of living.

Huh? You have any idea how many very low populated square miles we have in this country? Without checking I bet we have cities that rival the populations of some decently sized (landmass wise) states. Just like the rest of the world, our population largely lives on the coast. Some of that coast is, kind of ironically, rather arid yet support huge and even growing population centers.

Our problem is not an issue of limited landmass.

 

[Darwin333]

Stop building oil pipelines like Keystone that sends our oil to other Countries for massive profits while raping Americans and build pipelines that interconnect water resources around the country so we can divert rainwater where it is coming down most to areas where it stopped coming down.

Such a simple thing to do but won't do it because water doesn't make anywhere near the amount of profit that oil does.

Isn't the primary purpose of the Keystone pipeline to transport Canadian oil through the US for export to the east? Are you still in Canada? How do they feel about you considering their oil "ours"?


Out of curiosity, how big of a pipeline would be required to send water from the Mississippi river to the west coast?

 

[Darwin333]

No. Fuck your desert. It's your god damn problem that you live in one, the nation shouldn't bend over (and fuck other states up) to save the most fucked state in the union.

Look, you ALREADY pump water out of Hetch Hetchy to get San Fran its water. You're not going to wreck the PacNW which is a region that strives to have as little an effect on the ecosystem as possible.

Shut down everything south of San Fran. And while we're at it, shut down Vegas.

Brilliant idea! Seriously, I bet none of those people move to where you live and will instead stay and die of thirst!

Where do you think all those people are going to go when it goes dry? You can either prepare to take them in or have an adult discussion on how to not have to. I prefer the latter.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

You should pay what it costs, yes. By not subsidizing water, farmers will stop growing crops in arid environments. If the full cost of water is borne, the agricultural industry will sort itself out and grow where there is a comparative advantage to grow.

Short term do food prices go up? Probably, but I don't see how that hurts the "little guy" more than not having water. Humans have a tendency to consume, and the cheaper something is the more of it we use. Water included.

Sadly guys like Jhnnn can't see past their own partisan narrative blind spot. Especially as to the consequence of what occurs when one industry is allowed to not bare the actual full market costs of their water usage. Never mind how it distorts prices, or impacts the state during times of diminished rainfall. Or in some cases during periods of normal rainfall when some areas are still hit with water rationing demands and/or higher water bills due to consumption and demand for water by the farming industry in the state who as stated pays subsidized below market rates.

 

[Darwin333]

I think that has been solved by simply refining the oil and then selling it as gasoline and other refined products. We are exporting over 1 million barrels of gasoline per day (IIRC). Not sure how we have an excess anyway unless we are over-importing oil as we simply produce about half (not sure of exact number) of our own oil right now and import the rest.

A huge portion of our refined exports are to Mexico. Mexico is our largest supplier of oil and as part of that deal we refine a very small (relative) amount and sell it back to them. Pretty damn good deal if you ask me. Taken out of context it sounds bad but when speaking on the subject intelligently it isn't nearly as bad.

 

[Darwin333]

be sure to remember that when you are drinking your urine.

I would have thought that on a forum that most people would call "nerdy" that the people would have a basic understanding of chemistry. Does it really make you feel better that you are almost surely drinking someone/something elses urine rather than your own?

Urine is mostly water. We have this super duper uber advanced technology that can take the stuff that isn't water out of it and make it pure water. We can even do it in space!!!! I know, sounds completely unbelievable given our current state of development, personally I think it came from aliens.

 

[dmcowen674]

Isn't the primary purpose of the Keystone pipeline to transport Canadian oil through the US for export to the east?

Yes, it is for export. Americans get no benefit from it, we will get raped even more.

Shirley you are all for that obviously.

 

[MagickMan]

Isn't the primary purpose of the Keystone pipeline to transport Canadian oil through the US for export to the east? Are you still in Canada? How do they feel about you considering their oil "ours"?


Out of curiosity, how big of a pipeline would be required to send water from the Mississippi river to the west coast?

Wasting your time, he only believes what's been approved by the DNC.

 

[MagickMan]

Yes, it is for export. Americans get no benefit from it, we will get raped even more.

Shirley you are all for that obviously.

You mean except for them paying us to refine it?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by dmcowen674
Yes, it is for export. Americans get no benefit from it, we will get raped even more.

Shirley you are all for that obviously.

You mean except for them paying us to refine it?

You can't be serious. Really that dense?

Amazing.

 

[Victorian Gray]

A huge portion of our refined exports are to Mexico. Mexico is our largest supplier of oil and as part of that deal we refine a very small (relative) amount and sell it back to them. Pretty damn good deal if you ask me. Taken out of context it sounds bad but when speaking on the subject intelligently it isn't nearly as bad.

Mexico is a distant 3rd as an American Oil supplier. Canada is now, and has been for a long time, the largest supplier of foreign oil to the US. Saudi Arabia is a fair bit back of Canada at 2nd.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Brilliant idea! Seriously, I bet none of those people move to where you live and will instead stay and die of thirst!

Where do you think all those people are going to go when it goes dry? You can either prepare to take them in or have an adult discussion on how to not have to. I prefer the latter.

I really don't give a flip where they go. As long as we as a human race stop this nonsense of "we can bend mother nature to our will!" - No, ultimately you cannot. You live in a region that regularly sees droughts. You resist building power plants when you need them. And then when everything goes to shit and you have no power or water, suddenly everyone else has to come in and fix your broken state for you.

Look, the PNW supplies A LOT of the power to CA already, since we've got it coming out of our ears with hydro and wind power. This is DESPITE us blowing dams along the White Salmon river to allow Salmon to spawn upriver again. The last thing we need to do is pump water out of our ecosystem and further throw things off.

The adult discussion to have here isn't how to place a band aid on this gaping wound of absolute stupidity. The adult discussion is to say "Look, you can't live below sea level and expect to survive that long. You can't expect to have n * 100,000 live in a region that gets barely enough rain to support n number of people. The people in the areas of CA that are going to see a serious drought and not for the first time should see the writing on the wall.

But while we're at it, let's also help out by reducing the water you use: shut down water parks. Close golf courses. Ban all future swimming pools in residential zoned areas. Let the cost of water skyrocket and the free market will take over and people will leave. Or they'll die of thirst.

And given your name, you should be OK with those choices. People who live in desert regions and expect it to be acceptable and sustainable need to finally wake up. The whole "the world cannot support 7 billion people" realization needs to also come with this.

 

[MagickMan]

You can't be serious. Really that dense?

Amazing.

Stop being a stupid douche and post evidence if you have a rebuttal, otherwise you are the only one who looks like an idiot. First you said it was for us to sell our oil, now you're saying we're just going to refine theirs for free and make nothing from the whole thing. Where's your info, where's the smoking gun? Do you even know why you're saying what are? 😕

 

[Exterous]

Actually, overall the US cattle herd has further shrank. They are expecting beef prices to go up 4% this year. The droughts in most cattle states/cattle regions never really broke. It only went from terrible drought, to slightly less terrible drought.

😕 I said 'talk' not that it was actually growing already. Any breeding in Texas will likely wait to see what level of rainfall the spring brings. As for prices - those are going to lag actual growth by a few years

He has a positive outlook on the cattle business in East Texas. "I'm already seeing evidence that people are starting to try and build their herds back, if we get rain this spring that will continue, people are starting to buy female hefers to replace cows that they had sold."

http://ketknbc.com/news/east-texas-cattle-producers-are-depending-on-rain

While slaughter has been the main factor driving herds lower, the rates are now slowing as more ranchers hold back cows to increase breeding.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-31/u-s-cattle-herd-shrinking-to-63-year-low-means-record-beef-cost.html

 

[Darwin333]

Yes, it is for export. Americans get no benefit from it, we will get raped even more.

Shirley you are all for that obviously.

How do we get "raped" by helping our buddies, who happen to be our largest supplier of oil already, export some of their oil? A lot of which they will want us to refine for them and then export? Should we threaten them with military action if they don't sell it to us? If not, won't we get just as raped when they export it anyways without it ever moving across US soil?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The easiest thing to do is make Alberta the 51st state and the XL Pipeline can be completed without much fuss. 😉

 

[Darwin333]

Mexico is a distant 3rd as an American Oil supplier. Canada is now, and has been for a long time, the largest supplier of foreign oil to the US. Saudi Arabia is a fair bit back of Canada at 2nd.

My apologies, I always get the two mixed up. The point still stands, they supply us with a fuckload of oil because they have a bunch extra. What they don't have is the refining capacity to meet their own needs and we happen to have extra. So its a very win/win situation for us to buy their extra oil, which we desperately need, and then refine a tiny portion of it and sell it back to them.

Edit: Since you brought up Saudi Arabia, people often think we get a much larger portion of our oil from the ME than we actually do. We do have the ability to relatively quickly replace the oil we require from the ME. That should be something that both sides of the aisle were all over. Does anyone really think we "like" the ME enough to expend the massive amounts of military resources that we currently do? If their oil wasn't part of the lifeblood of our economy we wouldn't give two shits about the region and damn sure wouldn't be throwing the kind of money at it that we currently do. Africa has regions that are at least as fucked up, if not far worse, and you don't see us with massive military presences over there.... Why is that?

 

[Darwin333]

And given your name, you should be OK with those choices. People who live in desert regions and expect it to be acceptable and sustainable need to finally wake up. The whole "the world cannot support 7 billion people" realization needs to also come with this.

Actually, I think that we have evolved beyond our hunter gatherer roots to a point in which we can support the people on this planet, even by "artificial" means in places if necessary.

However, I do agree that some localities make piss poor choices concerning meeting those needs. That doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't do it though.

I am curious as to the solution you are proposing though, kill off the weak? Nuke a few poor countries maybe or should we all kill off a portion of our populations? How do we decide who to kill off then? Money? Intelligence? Usefulness to society? Maybe a random draw like a lottery?

 

[bradly1101]

I am curious as to the solution you are proposing though, kill off the weak? Nuke a few poor countries maybe or should we all kill off a portion of our populations? How do we decide who to kill off then? Money? Intelligence? Usefulness to society? Maybe a random draw like a lottery?

There is of course no solution unless there is a huge die-off from disease, famine, super-volcano, asteroid or a nuclear war (without the nuclear winter like in Star Trek). Or if the bees disappear. But what's to keep us from overpopulating again?

The road to war is too easy to travel (IMO), but it may be our only hope. :|

 

[rudder]

Should we have a nationwide aqueduct system, so that abundant water from the Pacific Northwest could be brought down to our desert? Wouldn't that be a big, fat, job creating infrastructure project?

If the pacific northwest states are cool with it and the citizens of California want to pay for it... go right ahead.

However I think the hippie environmentalists in California would all stroke out over the idea.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Actually, I think that we have evolved beyond our hunter gatherer roots to a point in which we can support the people on this planet, even by "artificial" means in places if necessary.

However, I do agree that some localities make piss poor choices concerning meeting those needs. That doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't do it though.

I am curious as to the solution you are proposing though, kill off the weak? Nuke a few poor countries maybe or should we all kill off a portion of our populations? How do we decide who to kill off then? Money? Intelligence? Usefulness to society? Maybe a random draw like a lottery?

You're putting words in my mouth. My suggestion with regards to the water problem is to simply say that no aid will be given. You will pay through the nose for water and the drier sections of CA will become like a third world eventually with no proper water. No one will want to move there, businesses will move out and eventually people will too. Now, maybe the government can offer tax breaks to people leaving CA to go to "sustainable" regions to help accelerate people leaving and make it more economical for them to do so. My suggestion here is to simply use incentives first and then after that let nature do the rest in getting people to populate sustainable regions.

As for the population problem, eventually we have to do something. I'd honestly say look at who has the ability to raise kids (income, proper housing, lack of criminal record/felony or egregious convictions) and after that say 1 kid per household. Hell, I'd like to see that regardless of whether we want to drop the population. The problem isn't really the US though, it's other countries that still behave like you have to have 10 kids because only 3 will live.

If the pacific northwest states are cool with it and the citizens of California want to pay for it... go right ahead.

However I think the hippie environmentalists in California would all stroke out over the idea.

Two people I know of in this thread who are from the PNW (myself and davmat) have both said...no. I have to imagine most people in WA would feel the same way. Oregon is generally more granola than WA.