Slashdot Mirror
As Drought Worsens, California Orders Record Water Cuts
New submitter GordonShure.com writes: The State of California has made an unprecedented move by uniformly restricting water supplies across the entire state as demand outstrips supply. Farms are most affected, though food prices aren't anticipated to rise in any hurry: imports from out of state continue apace. Notably, this is a problem Silicon Valley hasn't much helped to solve.
Will this move induce meaningful modernization upon the infrastructure supporting the state's thirty-eight million residents? Or will things continue to be corn, corn, corn for the time being?
Will this move induce meaningful modernization upon the infrastructure supporting the state's thirty-eight million residents? Or will things continue to be corn, corn, corn for the time being?
You want to have more water? Stop dumping your fresh water into the marsh lands to "save the mud fish!"
Instead of spending $68 Billion on a single high speed rail line between 2 cities that are already linked by several adequate transportation options, maybe we should use a fraction of that money for water projects? Moving water to where people live is a simple engineering problem. Why not solve it instead of being a victim of the weather?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Of course in a state that knew it had 7 year droughts and a history of 100 YEAR + long droughts the greens managed to get their way and prevent the needed infrastructure from being built.
I really need to know what the science was behind these decisions ?
I don't understand why we continue to allow incompetent government management of a critical resource. How many times do we have to prove that PRIVATE management of natural resources is better than useless wasteful goverment before people believe it?
If we privatize the water, then competition will simultaneously allow greater resource utilization at a lower cost and with greater access for everyone. Guaranteed.
what we need is a low carbon desal plant like the ones they are builing here http://ww2.kqed.org/science/2015/03/30/why-isnt-desalination-the-answer-to-all-californias-water-problems/
Here in Ventura County we pay more for water than in Israel or Saudi Arabia, two countries with much more severe water problems than California - and who get a large (or even majority) portion of their water from desalination. We have the world's largest body of water right next to us - and we simply don't utilize it. Desalination.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
not just the "don't develop anything" greens. The cities got fed up with subsidizing farms along the route.
Here's a novel idea, move out of the fucking desert and quit trying to grow produce by piping in water from several states away.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Yeah, whatever you want to call it. Sure. Bringing water to thirsty people is only good if you value people. If you don't value people, then it's understandable why you'd oppose helping them by making sure they have enough water.
contribute a lot to supporting the state's thirty-eight million residents?
the problem is the farms. they need to go.
In the dozens of articles I've read about the causes of California's water problems, and the proposed solutions, improving the infrastructure is barely mentioned. Massive infrastructure is already in place, at great expense, and it does nothing to solve the root problem: record drought (maybe the new normal if AGW is the cause), combined with a water rights system that encourages massive waste on the part of agricultural interests.
He said that the difference is that the state has grown in population to 38 million and has vast acres of farmland to irrigate, a problem with which the state cannot be blamed.
the actual populous takes a surprisingly low amount of water. the problem was and always has been the absurd crops they are trying to raise there. the state can't be blamed? who is HEAVILY subsidising water for farmers? THE STATE. who has refused to restrict water to farmlands until now? THE STATE. who has refused to change until it's half a decade too late? THE STATE.
i dont feel bad for California because this is their payment for their tireless efforts, day in and day out to use all the water they possibly can. this isn't a punishment, they earned this.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
it's not a desert
Stop using half the states water to raise crops for cattle and there will be plenty of water for people. Every time you eat a pound of beef you waste 1800 gallons of water.
Because no one needs to eat ?
People that live in all those communities don't need work ?
I'm no green but seeing farms that have been worked for generations shut down because assholes have gained control of the politics is heart rending.
Instead of trying to divide people into factions to fight over smaller and smaller amounts of water, why not just get more water from where water is plentiful to where people need it? Because dividing people is what really matters?
1) Where economically and environmentally feasible, use desalinization plants.
2) Where this is not feasible,
2a) turn off the tap, let the non-farmable-in-drought-years farmland devalue, let the habitable areas become worth less as they become less desirable places to live and people move out because they can't have a green front yard and a swimming pool, and watch the economy falter, or
2b) re-consider what "economically feasible" means and re-visit step 1.
There are going to be places where a desalinization plant is not environmentally feasible, and for those areas, well, tough. There will also be inland areas where there isn't enough saltwater to make desalinization feasible and where shipping water to those locations from coastal plants is not feasible. Unless the additional water from the coastal plants frees up water for these areas, it will be "tough" for them as well.
Of course in a state that knew it had 7 year droughts and a history of 100 YEAR + long droughts the greens managed to get their way and prevent the needed infrastructure from being built.
your unsustainable farming is catching up to you, nothing more. what was the science behind the decision to starting farms in a desert? shortsightedness is a problem... which is why you started farming crops that require the more water of any other crop IN A DESERT .
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
People who move to the desert and then demand someone else supply them with water (which comes from out of state btw) so they can grow crops that would NEVER grow there on their own ...
Yea, fuck those people and their ignorance, they did it to themselves and its bullshit they are dragging down others with them.
They KNEW this was an issue, how did they know? BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PIPE WATER IN FROM HUNDREDS OF MILES AWAY AND THEIR CROPS DON'T STAND A SNOWBALLS CHANCE IN HELL WITHOUT SOMEONE ELSES WATER.
You're an asshole because you think just because some dumbfuck started a farm in a shitty plot we should subsidise his stupidity and supply water to him. Personal responsibility, learn about it.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Maybe those farms never belonged there in the first place, or they should have not let the population grow to the point that it was unsustainable?
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
Stop growing almonds.
Stop wasting water. Recycle your waste into your water treatment plant and back to you.
Stop being so gay. Number 1 job! Frivolity breeds waste.
Water for health and sanitation should be higher priority than water for industries, including industrial farming beyond what is needed to feed Californians after accounting for food imported from other states or abroad.
This means every family should get enough water to drink, flush toilets (if it's yellow, let it mellow, if it's brown, flush it down), shower every few days, do dishes, wash clothes, water the foundation to prevent cracking, maintain a drought-tolerant lawn to prevent erosion, etc. Farms collectively would get enough water for crops that would be consumed in California. "Essential" food-service establishments (not most restaurants) would get enough water to stay open and maintain a drought-tolerant landscaping. Obviously I've left out a lot of things including water for essential services like fire, hospitals, veterinarian offices, etc. This "human-rights" usage would be prioritized over those "senior water rights" we keep hearing about in the news.
IF there was water left over, then people could water their lawn more, non-essential industries like chip-making (do they still do that in California?), farming for export to other states, etc. could have some. At this stage, "seniority" of water rights would kick in.
to discuss sensible zoning restrictions. Constant population growth in under-resourced areas make a handful of very wealth people even more wealthy, but it's madness to allow it to continue at the expense of the local environment. Just say no to the developers. We have exceeded the carrying capacity of local water supplies. Also...stop farming in the desert.
The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
I'd say that those farms haven't worked for generations. It's just the true costs of farming in a water poor region haven't been felt as badly before and the poor decisions on the past are being felt. You have some farmers see water being transported by their fields when they aren't being allocated any to other farms with unlimited allocations just because of when the allocations where given out. And people are draining the aquifers as fast as they can drill the wells without thinking of the consequences. Or if they do think of them they still do it because if they don't their neighbours will and they want the water before it's gone.
No, farming in an area when you absolutely need to have water transported in so that you can harvest a crop doesn't work in the long run. Just like our system of having to increase the loads of artificial fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides every year.
A scenario like this has been warned about or some time. The policymakers have ignored these warnings. Instead, they spent money on wasteful projects such as long distance high speed rail, projects which are not really feasible in a state like California. Basically, California is run by foolish idiots who ignored their states real problems and instead wasted money on expensive and wasteful long distance rail projects, which are more about optics than about value. Before you misunderstand, understand that rail inside cities is a good idea, but the market dynamics for that is very different from rail lines between cities. Building long distance high speed rail is far too expensive and will not really be a good value at all, partly due to planes likely being preferable to many, with all of the costs and funding being accounted for. The amount of track that has to be installed is far greater, than in cities where you can serve commuters with far less trackage. For ground based transport an upgrade to bus lines would be a much more cost effective solution.
Instead of spending money on that it should have spent it on more water projects, including desalination, reservoirs and storage. Things like water storage and transport are just not as hip and cool sounding as massively wasteful white elephants like the long distance rail.
Better cut water supplies to all the plebs so the rich can keep their golf courses and lawns fed with water to keep them green...it's not like 2/3rds of the surface of the planet is covered in water or anything.
the problem is the farms.
they need to go.
Are you an idiot? You do realize that food DOESN"T come from grocery store!!
It's not "madness". It's progress. It's relatively simple to transport water to people. We just have to decide to do it instead of second guessing every choice everyone ever made about where they live and work.
No, farming in an area when you absolutely need to have water transported in so that you can harvest a crop doesn't work in the long run.
Sure, it does. We've been doing it for thousands of years. In this case the only problem is that they are taking it from a place that still needs it.
That obviously doesn't work. On the other hand, taking it from the ocean there would be an infinite supply. That is the correct solution. While
they're at it, they should build up capacity past what is needed and use some of the excess desalinated water to replenish the water table that
they so recklessly deplinished.
Sure. But only as long as you make those people who chose to live in water-deprived areas pay every god damned cent of the cost of your infrastructure boondoggles, including compensation for external costs such as environmental damage to areas other people live.
If we were to actually do that, I bet many of those people would choose to move out of CA real quick.
California farmers have in the past, and continue to, wreak havoc on California. Read a bit about this asshole and his environmental catastophe: J.G. Boswell. His wikipedia page has been sanitized by his minions, but Amazon has a fairly good book on his rape and pillage of the state. http://www.amazon.com/The-King... Now the farmers are sucking the underground water table so dry the state is sinking at an unprecedented rate. http://www.motherjones.com/env... California wasn't such a desert until we "improved" the farming environment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
1:33 to 1:43 sums it up.
TL;DR version You live in a fukin' desert! You get your water by stealing it from others!
Need water? Move to a place that has water. Just not the states you already stole it from.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
See subject: Rinse, Lather, & Repeat http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* NO questions asked: I take GREAT PRIDE in making NOOB FOOLS like you, "eat your words"
(... & I'm just dead-up GOOD @ it (you're not, lol, shooting yourself DOWN vs. facts I use which shut your big mouth, & then running like Forrest too...)).
APK
P.S.=> To quote the late Sir Christopher Lee? "I've become MORE POWERFUL than ANY Jedi - even YOU! - & you KNOW it - after all, proofs in the pudding above & your ac post now "vainly attempting" to effetely *try* to "defend yourself"? Pathetic - TRULY pathetic! You fail on ANY & ALL levels vs. yours truly "The LORD of hosts", so-to-speak, making ME look GOOD & yourself, by way of comparison? Well, lol - 'not so good'... apk
Hydraulic fracturing requires freshwater. This is apparently because the salt content of sea water corrodes the plumbing that's designed to withstand as yet unnamed chemical cocktails but which are known to contain hydrochloric acid. And if you believe that, I have a bridge you might be interested in. Now, we're not talking a few thousand gallons of freshwater here, we're talking SEVERAL HUNDRED TONS - PER TREATMENT. What spoil is "recovered" does not come near the spoil that went in, so it has to go somewhere, right? Where does it go? Nobody's telling us (it's a fucking trade secret!), so we can only make the assumption that it eventually seeps back into the water table to contaminate it - which is why it'd be nice to know what's going on down there.
Fracking consumes more fresh water per surface area than any suburb, even the 20mm-high-lawn lot.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Yes, there is more profit in scarcity. There is no technical reason for there to be a drought. Jon Stewart has it right: "Learning curves are for pussies"
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sounds like you'd rather punish people than help them (or even allow them) to live better lives. Why?
well if its that easy, the people of cali should pay for it, on their own. no federal dollars.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Because I don't want to get stuck with the bill for their stupid decisions.
They should find that they can live better lives by moving to where conditions are more suitable to human habitation.
The reason tech startups aren't solving water problems in california is because for the most part it is not in need of a technical solution. California has more than enough water for residential, commercial, and industrial use. Even if it didn't, waste water reclamation was tried, and defeated by a bunch of idiots branding it as toilet to tap. Even if that wasn't enough, desalination can be done at costs that are practical for residential use when compared with the infrastructure and maintenance for distributing the water.
The real issue is agriculture. Agriculture uses 80% of the developed water in california, and agricultural use is covered by a set of insane historical policies relating to water rights based on seniority which gives certain people the right to divert essentially unlimited amounts of water from rivers or pump out of aquifers, and requires others to fight over whatever is left.Those left behind in the seniority lottery are in fact practicing water conservation, but the senior holders have no incentive to spend on dime on water conservation, and haven't even taken the simplest efforts to reduce waste. Instead they fight legally any attempt to even get them to report how much water they are taking, and generally make crazy idiotic statements about how their rights are being infringed. The problem can't be solved without their involvement, and any tech company would be insane to bet their business and their capital on political reform of water rights.
Bottled water and fracking are both egregiously harmful to the health of California's water supply.
So is subsidizing rice paddies in an arid climate.
Cuts to residential use is really just a way to give industries with lobbyists a pass and blame the average citizen instead.
Agreed. CA can easily afford it.
Why do you think you will be harmed if Californians have enough water? What could lead someone to believe something like that?
I'm harmed because huge water boondoggles are usually bankrolled by the Federal government.
Why don't you look at my original post, where I said your white elephant projects are fine, as long as it's 100% paid for by the people who chose to live there.
And while you're at it, why don't cut out the passive-aggressive fake empathy that drips from every one of your posts? It's not fooling anyone.
Nobody mentions it but a severe water shortage could actually cause the evacuation of California. Much like Florida an economic disaster in California could collapse the economy of the US. One partial solution is to ban the shipping of any food products abroad. That would keep food affordable within the US and also use less water as the demand for crops would be far less. Under the belly of this monster is growth. Politicians and businesses always whine about growth. Growth destroys everything good. A ban on new construction for the state of California would limit growth. Imagine how short on water they would be if another 10 million people moved to California. And underneath that growth problem is the ever swelling population bomb that nobody wants to deal with. By law make less babies! The idea of growth rests upon the notion that locals are worthless and have no money to support businesses therefore we must "grow" to bring new money our way. Detroit is an example of what growth always does. The slums of Memphis are what growth does. Brooklyn and the Bronx are what growth does. Miami Florida is what growth does. And we now are about to pay the piper for all our growth.
CA should pay for its own water projects. There's no need for anyone else to pay for them.
And while you're at it, why don't cut out the passive-aggressive fake empathy that drips from every one of your posts? It's not fooling anyone.
It's offered as a counterpoint to the weird nastiness that seems to surround the water topic. It really is relatively simple to transport water from place to place. There's no reason for people to get upset about it. Why not just solve the problem? Really, why not?
Some people want to fight instead. I'd rather we stopped doing that all the time. Because it's bad for us.
The current "drought" was brought about by Gov. Pat Brown, father of Emperor Moonbeam II (Jerry Brown). The Californians voted for him.
The current "drought" was initiated by Emperor Moonbeam I (Jerry Brown). The Californians voted for him.
The current "drought" was solidified by Emperor Moonbeam II (Jerry Brown). The Californians voted for him.
Even though as the current drought conditions are a greater than 65 million year cyclical pattern of climate, geology and plate tectonics the current "drought" was made by the policies of Pat Brown and Emperor Moonbeam and the Californians voted for them and the Los Angeles water district policies and employees.
Therefore, the Californians are at fault for the current "drought".
Ha ha
I skimmed an article about the pinch now hitting higher priority water rights holders while waiting at a doctor's office yesterday. Apparently people and corporations have water rights going back over a hundred years that control who does and does not get water. They still have to pay for it though. Seems like the legalized prioritizations might make a lot of the discussion about what water should and should not be used for moot. Or, as usual, that simplistic solutions aren't feasible.
Why not?
Because in the real world, it's NOT simple to move water around at all. Moving water around has involved some of the most expensive undertakings this country has ever attempted, and has been responsible for massive environmental damage and the disruption of the livelihoods of countless people.
Moreover, the water has to come from somewhere. If you hadn't noticed, the entire western US has almost no extra water. Precipitation is simply not refilling the original sources of Western water supplies. Maybe you think it's cheap and easy to pipe it over the continental divide, after somehow wresting water rights from people in the East. If so, you're an ignoramus.
And desalinization is totally unrealistic to address anything but urban water use, which is a drop in the bucket.
I don't know why you're surprised by "weird nastiness" over water rights. Civilizations all over the world have been highly protective of their water rights for millennia, and many wars have been fought over water. Fresh water is probably the single most important resource on the planet, and nobody is going to give up their water without a fight, even if they're not using all of it at this exact moment. There is simply not going to be any Kumbaya solution to these issues.
But the problem isn't the chicken of high speed rail that you and Kohath are so desperately fucking. Do you also blather on that the state wouldn't have water problems if they stopped highway spending? The problem is that California politicians are bought by the people wasting the most water, namely rice and almond farmers and the fracking industry.
So California should burn piles of money rather than reign in greedy industries that DGAF about the rest of the state? It takes ONE gallon of water to produce ONE almond. Fracking uses hundreds of thousands of gallons of water, as do open air pools and golf courses for one percenters.
If it takes a full day to travel a few hundred miles, the transportation is not adequate. But keep fucking that chicken.
I am not American. I agree with neither/both of you and agree the same. However, some people do NOT choose to live somewhere, they're BORN there. Unless you're asking to 1) Abandon their family or 2) Force their family to move, some people live in inconvenient places for reasons not of their choosing...
But coastal areas of CA are very wealthy. They can afford to solve the problem for themselves. It's not exactly the third world out here. All we have to do is decide to solve it and build the needed infrastructure.
Brawndo: The Thirst Mutilator !
Because "the water table" matters? Except for the ability to use more water, why is one water table level good and another bad?
all those million dollar houses can rot away and it will all look like detroit. don't even think about coming after our fresh water.
... according to California Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R).
“Texas was in a long period of drought until Governor Perry signed the fetal pain bill,” she told the audience. “It rained that night. Now God has his hold on California.”
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Reminds me of the argument for why I'm supposed to pay for someone else's medical bills because of their stupid decisions.
The smokers, the obese, drug users and alcoholics all want to continue doing what they're doing without having to enable conditions which are more suitable to a healthy life.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Lowering the water table can cause land subsidence, so there is some reason to keep it up.
Actually the situation is that water is being sold below market value and wasted in inefficient agriculture practices to provide YOU with inexpensive food. So CA residents are subsidizing your food prices.
Residential use of water in CA accounts for 10%, industry another 10%, agriculture the remaining 80%.
Over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US come from CA.
people have been forced to move ever since people existed. because of draughts, overpopulation and lots of other reasons.
industries went belly up. so will agriculture in california. no big deal.
deal with REALITY.
your water bill should rise exponentially with use
CA should pay for its own water projects. There's no need for anyone else to pay for them.
OK. Then CA can stop selling water below market value to agriculture. Agriculture that consumes 80% of CA's water. Agriculture that supplies over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US. In short, your groceries are subsidized by CA.
With 80% of water going to the agriculture that feeds you supplying some of the water is not exactly unjust.
That said, CA agriculture could use a lot of reform and modernization.
what was the science behind the decision to starting farms in a desert?
Fertile soil + Long growing seasons = Lots of food to feed lots of hungry people all over the country.
let me tell you from my german perspective they ALREADY do batshit crazy stuff.
pumping water several hundred meters uphill for AGRICULTURE ? plain insane.
move the farms already. georgia, florida, tennesse. places like this.
An interesting novel that touches on this subject.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
That isn't what he is saying. He is saying he will be harmed if he is forced to pay for the infrastructure to assure that Californians have enough water. You know, it's simple economics. If you don't benefit from something but are forced to contribute substantial money to it, you're harmed because you can't use the money in ways beneficial to you.
Please don't twist the discussion.
The freedom to move to a new locality is one of our rights here in the United States. You can get up and move, and there's no government agency you need to ask for permission before doing so. There are places in the world, like China, where many people do not have that right.
It's really pitiful to see people who seem almost eager to abrogate their rights.
There's no reason for anyone outside CA to pay for CA water projects. Who is even proposing that? No one that I've heard of.
The US Government is paying a few billion dollars for that high speed train though.
LMAO - see subject & this http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... in a point by point BLOWING AWAY of your purest b.s. easily, & you doing a "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" here too -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm...
To add icing to MY cake?
Trying to "hide this" via bogus moddowns last time I posted it too, stupid??
DUMB -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> Keep "running", Forrest: You're doing a BETTER JOB of nuking yourself by doing THAT, even BETTER than what I used to utterly FRY you in those links above after you shot your piehole off @ me... apk
The California central valley is not naturally a desert. The problem in California is one that many other parts of the US shares. The potential of the land far surpasses the available surface water. In California the solution was to transport water many hundreds of miles. In other parts of the country the solution was to drill down and access ancient aquifers that are not be refilled, to drill deeper and deeper into the aquifer each year.
Transporting water to fertile farmlands will become a national issue, its not specific to California. Its just being seen in California first.
Transport water from where? Seriously, where do you think SoCal can get the water? Please explain how this is simple.
They landowners may have a federally protected right to water but the state can control what crops are grown in California. Yeah such dictates are un-American but they are Californian. Ask any other industry in California.
Nestle was pumping around 1m gallons a week out of the ground for sale. Are they still doing that, or has the state finally decided that maybe it's not a good idea to tell citizens they can't have water, but tell megacorps they can?
Of course people in China can move about! How else do you think people can move from the small provinces to the cities to find work? If you'd said N. Korea you may have a point, but China, no. And yes, I know people that live in China...
They KNEW this was an issue, how did they know? Because They Have To Pipe Water In From Hundreds Of Miles Away And Their Crops Don't Stand A Snowballs Chance In Hell Without Someone Elses Water.
Who is "they"?
Be specific.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Maybe those farms never belonged there in the first place, or they should have not let the population grow to the point that it was unsustainable?
Given that the current drought is unprecedented, how would they have knows that? California has managed thus far to have enough water. The current situation is obviously scary, but nobody is able to predict the future.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
..and you propose that the solution to living in an inconvenient place is to continue living in an inconvenient place...
"His name was James Damore."
can we please stop with this wunderkind, all you need is some software engineers to fix any
problem thing?
its really offensive to people who actually learned how the world works, and do things
to change it.
somehow you're gonna solve drought, or famine, or war disease with some crappy
distributed evaluation tools, a python script, and an extra side-helping of techno-libertarianism
so so special you software people, know more about everything than anyone else
It is not news to anyone that southern California is a desert. It was a desert when the first settlers arrived, it is a desert now supported only by a massive water management structure, and when that structure goes away it will go back to being a desert. That's nature, dudes.
But California is in this fix because of Liberals and their policies. There is no argument here possible, they have owned and operated the state since the turn of the 19th Century. It's their little utopia that the rest of us should emulate. And they are in this fix because for the last 50 years they have jettisoned every single planned water-management project their original development framework called for. They have scuttled major portions of the system already built. They are, even now, pouring fresh water into the Pacific for the benefit of some miserable little fish, and all of it a concession to the greenies and their lunatic anti-human agenda. So the "Party of the Poor," the "Champions of the Middle Class" and so on and so forth, are now slowly strangling the people they claim to want to help to keep their campaign coffers full of green slush. In short, they lied about having a handle on California's environment. They weighed the middle class against a minority of activists and decided for the activists. And this is what Liberals do, every time. They aren't a political party, they are a formation of special interests currently tacking on the same course. And if that course should crush a few farmers or destroy a few more jobs, well fuck you, people. You exist to serve the State, not the other way around! And it's long past time people begin to realize what they are really dealing with. These are fascists, no more and no less. And they won't be happy until they are sending Jews and climate deniers to death camps in Canada.
The farmers's share of the water has not increased in all this time. Rather it is the demands from cities that has increased and drained down the water. The cities are the problem. I wonder what they intend to eat once they've gotten rid of the farms?
You move either the crops, the people, the water (desal etc) or some combination of the three. I expect that if it extends, farms will close, people will move etc Produce will be imported from elsewhere. South Australia is undertaking massive Almond expansion in anticipation, for example. This will exacerbate the problem on decades to come, more emissions etc
And desalinization is totally unrealistic to address anything but urban water use, which is a drop in the bucket.
Israel does it. Not saying we have to copy them, just that they proved it's practical. If you're going to be talking about water so angrily, you ought to know what you're talking about.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Is dumping the treated wastewater out to sea. Captain obvious could see this being a problem from 17 miles away.
[...]
And desalinization is totally unrealistic to address anything but urban water use, which is a drop in the bucket.
[...]
Honestly, I mostly agree with both of you: As long as California bankrolls it, I am fine with whatever choice they make--and if what they decide is to take care of urban water needs via desalinization plants, so be it. It might actually be a relatively good idea overall if they could be convinced to sponsor the development of the earlier-proposed floating ones--especially since the fact you can move them easily means you not only don't necessarily lose out if it rains, but also means people could pay you to take them to coastal areas after natural disasters. (One of the reasons you shouldn't be trusting tap water after such is that the water plant needs to make sure it's functioning properly, and in some places it needs significant repairs to say the least.)
Besides, it might be wise to take a two-pronged approach, treating it as a way to take care of the coastal urban areas while removing some of the barriers protecting farmers from the effects of inefficiencies in agricultural practices. If this causes them to be more reluctant to grow water-hungry crops in California when they grow perfectly fine in other places with better climate for it, so be it.
It really is relatively simple to transport water from place to place. There's no reason for people to get upset about it. Why not just solve the problem? Really, why not?
I will assume you are in earnest and bite. You are correct that moving water from point A to point B is, while expensive, not generally a difficult issue from an engineering perspective. The problem is that this is not an engineering problem.
Fresh water is a finite resource (and getting even more finite in many areas of the US as El Nino ramps up). Pumping water from the Columbia River - hell, from the Yukon River - to California is expensive but not hard from an engineer's viewpoint. However, every gallon you drain from the Columbia is a gallon that potentially a farmer in the Columbia Basin in Washington (which leads the US in production of apples, sweet cherries, grapes, pears and hops) does not have access to anymore.
Leaving aside the farmers, many rivers in the Northwest connected to the Columbia watershed have significant salmon populations which depend on navigable waterways - as do the Native American and commercial fishermen who support themselves by fishing for salmon, steelhead and other fish that migrate upriver to spawn. Oh, and reduced flow from the Columbia would reduce the region's hydroelectric power generation and require more fossil fuel-burning electrical sources (plus making those Google, Facebook and Apple data centers in Oregon money-losers). And pretty much every other river system in the US has people, animals and industries that depend on their water flow as well. No amount of money from California or anywhere else is going to make all these issues go away.
So, yes, while we Seattleites complain about all the rain, it doesn't mean that yanking water away from us to ship to California doesn't have consequences. And in any situation where the solution requires one broad group of interested parties (e.g. California farmers, Californians who like to take showers) to benefit at the expense of another (Native American salmon fishermen, people who like apples), politics and negotiation are the only ways to resolve the question... not technology.
The use of technologies to try to solve the problem in a way that doesn't mean taking fresh water away from someone else are similarly political because they are so frickin' expensive. Desalinization uses ludicrous amounts of power (usually generated in ways that produce carbon pollution) to generate comparatively small amounts of fresh water. And someone needs to pick up the check, which isn't any less contentious a question here than it is at a post-work happy hour with a bunch of cheapskate co-workers.
So anyway, I applaud your earnestness (if that's what it is) in asking the question why we can't solve this issue. The answer just happens to be that someone has to give for someone else to get, and sorting that out is a problem technology can't solve.
"95% of all Slashdot
We haven't been transporting water from one place to another for thousands of years, at least not on the scale of what is happening in California (and China).
As for desalination, I don't know why people keep suggesting it as a solution. Yes it is possible to supply the water needs for what comes our of your tap. However it is much, much too expensive, environmentally damaging, and energy intensive to scale up to meeting the needs of agriculture. Farming is an order of magnitude greater in it's requirements for water. So if the population is unwilling to build a series of desalination plants to provide drinking water I somehow doubt that they are going to want to build at least ten times that number to provide water to a bunch of almond trees.
Plus it might be nice if you didn't have to keep paying hundred of thousands of dollars to drill deeper wells because everyone is sucking the water out of the aquifers.
How many of those fruits and vegetables are native to California and suited to the climate and habitat?
Nearly all are well suited to the climate, that's is why they have extra growing seasons for many of these crops in CA.
The habitat in CA is like much of the habitat in the rest of US agriculture in the central regions of the country, these traditional farming lands have potential productivity far in excess of available surface water. It is only by tapping additional water resources that the US can feed so many at home and around the globe. In the central US many regions are currently tapping aquifers that are not being replenished, aquifers that will run dry, and like California they will have to import water.
Importing water is not necessarily bad. Nature distributes it somewhat randomly, not wisely nor efficiently nor beneficially. What is bad is when we also fail to distribute it wisely or efficiently or beneficially, which is really the problem in CA.
Good day, sir. I said, GOOD DAY.
It is a good day when billions are fed well. And to do so we must produce beyond what the habitat allows. Else we fall into a Malthusian catastrophe and few will have a good day.
That is what I understand. Water used for fracking cannot be recycled, you cannot get the fracking chemicals out.
Trillions of gallons of fresh water are gone for good.
Desalinization costs around $2000 per acre-foot. Beef production uses around 1800 gallons per pound. Feeding cows from California-grown crops would therefore tack more than $11 per pound onto the price of beef. Almonds use a similar amount of water per pound as beef, so would face a similar markup.
Rice needs 300 gal/pound, which would add $1.84 per pound to its price. Maybe Israelis pay these kinds of prices for their food. However, that's simply not realistic for this country. We'd shift to imports or food grown in other states before paying for staple crops grown with desalinized water.
Rice needs 300 gal/pound, which would add $1.84 per pound to its price. Maybe Israelis pay these kinds of prices for their food.
Maybe you should figure out how they do it before advocating water policy. It would make you a lot more reasonable.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The people saying they don't want to pay for people to live in the desert have it wrong. It's more like you are paying for them to stay there and not have a bunch of new Californian neighbors. A price well worth it.
Pardon my ignorance. Won't most of the water used for farming go back to the soil? So will these water refill the aqualifier?
I think you'll find, if you re-read my comments, I proposed nothing at all. I only put forward a reason why such a circumstance could come about. Please don't straw-man me, nor put words in my mouth. Thank you
The good news is that water retails for $1500-$3000 per acre foot in my area, so desal is not a crazy solution for residential users. Sure, it doesn't solve the farming problem, but nothing will. Ag simply uses an unsustainable amount of water, and no amount low flow toilets in San Francisco will change that.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
In my country where the right to move to a new locality is a Constitutional right, there are also property rights so people who want to move can't just boot other people out of their homes and move in. Makes moving much harder if you don't have money to pay off the people who you want to displace though the option of being homeless is always there, though most people are not eager to take that route.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
California isn't the only place in the world where farming can happen. It's a nice place because of good soil, sun, and a lack of frost, but it's only good as long as you can ship water in or pump it out of aquifers to make up for the fact that not enough water falls in those non-frosty, sunny areas to sustain farms. Moving to places with less sun and more water may make sense if the problem is a lack of water.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
No, maybe you should show me your plan to produce rice that is profitable at $1.29 per pound retail using only desalinated water.
Do you understand that California is an EXPORTER of food? Thus, those 'wasteful' farms are probably supplying a good deal of your food... just sayin'.
btw, I think your numbers are screwy. It's hard for me to believe almonds take that much water. Who gave you those numbers? Are you getting confused, thinking that people are still flood-irrigating? Because that does use more water.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
See subject + your self-destruction (by documented fact) http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> Unbelievably PITIFUL & pathetic with your "TL:DR" troll bullshit fool - too bad I just COMPLETELY DUSTED YOU, yet again, lol... apk
I handed you your ASS 3x here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
& here too before it http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* Do you REALLY think your multiple account sockpuppet administered downmods can hide them since you've downmodded my posts via sockpuppets?
(Everyone here KNOWS how that all works & how EASY IT IS to setup multiple accounts for sockpuppetry, andy ole' boy, lol!)
ANSWER: I won't ALLOW it, fool... lol!
APK
P.S.=> No, you're going to grovel in your humiliation here, publicly & I am going to MAKE CERTAIN of it now, weasel... bank on it! apk
There's no need to move water save for a few exceptional cases in rural areas where local farming has completely depleted the water table. The answer is much simpler: stop farming. It's 2% of CA's economy or around $40 billion. If we cut out the thirstiest plants first we can save tons of water without sacrificing much of the economic benefits.
Stop farming? That is an absolutely clueless position for two reasons:
(1) CA produces over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US.
(2) The CA central valley has the exact same problem as the areas where you thinking water should be moved into. The central valley is *not* a desert. Like those rural areas you mention it is incredibly fertile land with insufficient surface water. Plus the CA central valley has a climate that allows for year round production. Other parts of the US mine aquifers that are not being replenished and they will have to import water too at some point.
That said, note that the over 50% of fruits and vegetables does not include almonds, cotton and other troublesome crops. Moving those out of CA is probably a good idea. And modernizing irrigation and other techniques would also be a good idea.
Move people to where the water is instead. Or at least the farming.
Absolutely wrong. Farms should be where the fertile land is. Water is easily moved. For 5,000 years farmers have relocated to good land and then figured out how to get additional water there if necessary.
The California central valley is *not* a desert. It is incredibly fertile land, farming should take place there. Plus the climate allows many foods to be grown year round. California produces over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US. That is *not* including some particular troublesome crops like almonds, cotton, etc which perhaps should be farmed elsewhere.
By the way, much of the farmland in the central portions of the US lack enough surface water for farming too. They have to mine ancient aquifers that are not being replenished. Each year they must mine deeper and deeper, they will have to import water like California one day.
Moving water to where people live is a simple engineering problem.
Moving water to where people live is indeed an engineering problem, but I'd hardly call it "simple". Especially given the quantities that would be involved.
Its not simple but it is something that was figured out thousands of years ago. Google Roman aqueducts.
How about move the people to where the water is instead?
Residential use accounts for only 10% of CA water usage, industry another 10%. Agriculture is the remaining 80%. The CA central valley is *not* a desert and it contains some of the most fertile land around and it has a climate that permits production all year. The CA central valley currently produces over half the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US.
Like much of the farm land in the central regions of the US the CA central valley lacks sufficient surface water. In CA the water gets imported. In the central regions of the US it tends to get mined from ancient aquifers that are not being refilled, these other farming areas will have to import water too someday.
why is it difficult to move water around when its easy to move oil around? The Keystone pipeline is an example. Move water from places of excess to places that need it.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Land occupied by more worthless humans isn't progress.
Yeah, let's also force people in areas with hurricanes and tornadoes to pay every single cent of the cost of emergency relief. Also, since California makes pretty much all of the money the US has, anyone living in another state needs to pay higher taxes to make up for their slacking economies.
And I'm harmed by broke-ass fuckers like you not pulling your weight. You want to compare the economies of California and whatever podunk, piece of shit redneck state you live in?
How are you people going to make up for that? You're not pulling your own weight until your state economy is as good as California's, so you need to pay out of pocket for that, or get the fuck out of my country, you lazy slacker.
Except he won't be paying. California pretty much pays for everything in the US since we have the best economy and pay the most taxes.
If anything, the rest of the states owe California money.
Most federal dollars come from California since we are the richest state in the country. It's OUR money, not yours.
See, I wonder about figures like this. Your $11 per pound works if the price per acre-foot and the amount of water per pound are correct. I'm wondering about the sources for those numbers though. For example $2000 per acre-foot is about $1.62 per cubic meter. Residential prices in LA are about $1.84 per cubic meter. From what I can find, typical costs for water for agriculture in California are currently from $1000 to $2000 per acre-foot and are 10X what they were a few years ago due to the drought. In other words, the high water costs you predict for water from desalination are already here.
Next, I'm curious about the 1800 gallons per pound for beef. A typical cow is slaughtered at 18 months of age. 1800 gallons is about 7.5 tons. So, we're talking about 28X the cow's body weight per day in water. Hummingbirds can consume up to twice their body weight in food in a day, but a cow just doesn't have that kind of metabolism. Cows actually consume something like 2.2% of their body weight in a day. So, we're basically saying here that 1,254X the actual intake of the cow is being used up by the cow. Presumably, this is from whatever crop the cows themselves are being fed. Now, the commonly bandied about 1.1 gallons for a single almond gives us around 3,333 the almond's mass in water. So, it would be believable if the cows were being fed water-thirsty nuts. A head of lettuce, which weighs about a pound, on the other hand, only takes about 3.5 gallons, or thirty times its weight in water to grow. Heck, wheat only takes about 719X its weight in water to grow, and that's for the actual grain. Cows can eat the stalk too. If you're feeding crops like alfalfa, which takes a lot of water, to cows then yeah, it can take 1000+ times its weight in water to produce hay for the cow to eat. So, basically, it looks like it can really take 1800 gallons per pound for beef, but only if you're stupid about what you're feeding them in a low-water area.
Basically, the bottom line is that the high amount of water needed to produce beef can be real, but only if bad choices are made. Raising beef in near-desert conditions may be one of those poor choices. In any case, it's pretty clear that cheap beef is already pretty heavily subsidized in various ways. Cheap water is just one of them. The other thing is clear is that the cheap water for raising beef in California is at an end. Even when/if the drought ends, prices will never go back down to what they were, regardless of desalinization.
I once had a fat fucker kicked off of an airplane because he was spilling over into my seat and refused to confine himself to his own. People like that need to pay for two tickets, not steal the space that other people paid for.
Any place that has more water than they need? Are you really that stupid?
Freedom to move doesn't mean that you can actually move. Among other things, it requires money to move, and to be meaningful, it requires a job and other arrangements at the destination.
It is not unusual at all in America to have situations with resources where the demand outstrips the supply at low prices. The way we handle this is by allowing price to adjust. California has just raised prices to $500 per 326,000 gallons. Consumers are not going to have a problem if the bulk price were to go to 10x that level. But it would shutdown most farming. It would also make all sorts of water savings devices profitable.
The way to handle the water crisis is to let the price of water move up to a level where supply and demand come into balance.
"Besides, uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 6mb here only w/ CURRENT data vs. threats + ads (& things a bloated browser addon can't do by a longshot & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )
---
"1) Will it run on my iPad (and no, I'm not jailbreaking)?" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Sure hosts can: jailbreak it (like on ANDROID via ADB use).
---
"2) Can I use it to block annoying "toolbars" that sites cover 20% of their content with (e.g. Wikia)?" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Sure - don't load toolbars dumbass (or use hosts or firewalls to block their content they pull in) OR DON'T USE SHITHOLES LIKE 'EM (I don't - they're blocked due to what you said).
---
"3) Can it be used to defeat modal boxes" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Stopping javascript does it - using what you already HAVE natively (for more speed too) - only FOOLS run that crapscript indiscriminately everywhere! Opera allows it via "by site" preferences in 12.17 64-bit for instance.
---
"4) How about the auto-playing video" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Easy - block a source if not the same site (ads served on the same site don't pay, admen don't trust webmasters "alleged" hitcounts & I don't blame 'em).
---
"I can even use it to block the stupid "videos" feature on the Slashdot" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Again - Stall javascript (or cut video sources via hosts).
APK
P.S.=> You fail - You do STUPID THINGS "bolting on 'MOAR'" increasing overheads & doing LESS off a slower mode of ops vs. using what you NATIVELY HAVE THAT'S MORE EFFICIENT & DOES MORE TOO...apk
The US Government is paying a few billion dollars for that high speed train though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state
Looks to be about a 132 billion net surplus.
Quit your whining you ignorant little bitch. You are the most insufferable kind of fool.
"Besides, uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 6mb here only w/ CURRENT data vs. threats + ads (& things a bloated browser addon can't do by a longshot & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )
---
"1) Will it run on my iPad (and no, I'm not jailbreaking)?" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Sure hosts can: jailbreak it (like on ANDROID via ADB use).
---
"2) Can I use it to block annoying "toolbars" that sites cover 20% of their content with (e.g. Wikia)?" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Sure - don't load toolbars dumbass (or use hosts or firewalls to block their content they pull in) OR DON'T USE SHITHOLES LIKE 'EM (I don't - they're blocked due to what you said).
---
"3) Can it be used to defeat modal boxes" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Stopping javascript does it - using what you already HAVE natively (for more speed too) - only FOOLS run that crapscript indiscriminately everywhere! Opera allows it via "by site" preferences in 12.17 64-bit for instance.
---
"4) How about the auto-playing video" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Easy - block a source if not the same site (ads served on the same site don't pay, admen don't trust webmasters "alleged" hitcounts & I don't blame 'em) or use better sites.
---
"I can even use it to block the stupid "videos" feature on the Slashdot" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Again - Stall javascript (or cut video sources via hosts).
APK
P.S.=> You fail - You do STUPID THINGS "bolting on 'MOAR'" increasing overheads & doing LESS off a slower mode of ops vs. using what you NATIVELY HAVE THAT'S MORE EFFICIENT & DOES MORE TOO...apk
If you're going to continue to live somewhere stupid, at least don't bitch about someone else needing to fix your problem for you because you refuse to move.
Just charge businesses the same rates you charge real people. They'll stop using water, move out of town, and you no longer have a water problem. You might have some tax income problems for a while as businesses reorganize, but that's actually probably easier to fix than running out of water.
I don't understand the judges ruling.
He told senior water rights holders to close their headgates because there was not enough water.
Is this to protect the most senior rights holder, or to protect some Johonny come lately city like maybe LA?
This report is interesting
http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/ca_ftprint_full_report3.pdf
The issue is available water in CA or maybe in the US sw.
The report creates a set of definitions which cloud this central issue..
Water footprint is the water what went into making something, even if it was made outside the above region.
Green water use, is using soil and direct precip use.
Blue water use is using flowing or ground water use.
They are saying that cities are a drop in the bucket compared to ag.
If this is so, why do they need to include the water used for AG imports.
Seems like these have nothing to do with consumption in the area of interest.
(Or worse, they actually are an example of helping the situation, but are shown as the reverse.)
The envionmental movement indoctronates us that green is good.
Maybe things are not so bad that one can't keep/use the water that falls on one's own land.
But this ignores that whatever is kept does not flow into the Blue sources downstream.
Water in the SW and especially CA has always been a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
In making these choices, it seems like there are two ways to choose.
Senior versus junior is the plan that has worked for a long time.
The cities are pretty junior and have a lot of political clout, so this is problematic.
Wise versus silly use is another way to go.
Israel knows what efficient ag is.
Just like golf courses and lawns, a lot of CA AG does silly things.
Perhaps the first fair thing to do is to eliminate Golf and lawns.
Doesn't matter if the grass is watered with Green, Blue, Black, or Purple water, it is still silly.
The water could be put to better use elsewhere.
After that, then teach/require AG to get more efficient.
After that, think about plant crops versus meat production.
It would be nice to know where there is an unbiased report on these issues.
If the above report is the best available, then they are in real trouble.
Which is not suprising for the land or fruits and nuts.
Given that the current drought is unprecedented
Please tell me you're kidding. Not only isn't it unprecedented in recent history (centuries) - but we know that over millennia the current drought isn't even on an order of magnitude near what regularly happens in California.
I'm sure Silicon Valley is coming up with a solution for the drought right now. It will involve streaming media with a twist of social networking. I'm sure it will work! It seems like Silicon Valley only knows how to do one thing. But the bright side is everyone will be able socially share MP3 files of rain sounds.
We found that out in the early 2000s with power when californians couldn't shut off their air conditioners and caused rolling blackouts.
Why not?
Because in the real world, it's NOT simple to move water around at all. Moving water around has involved some of the most expensive undertakings this country has ever attempted, and has been responsible for massive environmental damage and the disruption of the livelihoods of countless people.
Moreover, the water has to come from somewhere. If you hadn't noticed, the entire western US has almost no extra water. Precipitation is simply not refilling the original sources of Western water supplies. Maybe you think it's cheap and easy to pipe it over the continental divide, after somehow wresting water rights from people in the East. If so, you're an ignoramus.
And desalinization is totally unrealistic to address anything but urban water use, which is a drop in the bucket.
I don't know why you're surprised by "weird nastiness" over water rights. Civilizations all over the world have been highly protective of their water rights for millennia, and many wars have been fought over water. Fresh water is probably the single most important resource on the planet, and nobody is going to give up their water without a fight, even if they're not using all of it at this exact moment. There is simply not going to be any Kumbaya solution to these issues.
have you been to Seattle, Portland, etc? The entire western US EXCEPT Washington and Oregon you mean, right?
...as we talk about WHERE I LIVE. It's a real problem not something for you insensitive dickwads to joke about. And to make it worse the government won't do anything about it. So I watch my state dry up and you laugh it off like its a Kardashian story. Can't wait til something happens to your home 'cause I'm gonna laugh too.
Stop trying to "save" the delta smelt. Lift the ban on building new reservoirs. You enviro-terrorists are saving yourselves to death.
to bottle and ship and sell water outside the state... or better yet, BACK to the citizens of california for a fucking profit...
End result of my program IS hosts. It was a 6mb result.
I.E.-> Current data (vs. NOT ONLY ADS, but many types of malicious threats online) was drawn the day of our debate (actually a month's worth from all but 1 of the sources my program draws from, since it's data is old, = 6mb).
Why do you run from your "classic fails" list here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> Look, I know you live in San Franciso, so PLEASE: Do catch AIDS already you flamer, lol... apk
I don't *have* to work anymore like a wageslave (like you): I run my own business & have since 2010 here in fact - but, I *will* & DO work, IF the money is right (in fact, I just finished a Server + workstation clients & custom DCOM apps migration for Hilton Hotels 3 days ago, since the money was VERY good).
* I've done decent things in the art & science of computing you never HAVE or will, aids boy, before you were born I'd wager... my simple app that blows away "your aids ridden addled brain" chooses is a single example of it - what have YOU done better, Mr. ALLEGED 'software engineer'? Nothing I can see online...
APK
P.S.=> Tell us San Fran AIDS boy: Why do you run from your "classic fails" list here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... Hmmm? Cat got your TONGUE Andy-Boy (or is it you have another SanFran man's tool in your mouth again, lol?)... apk
See subject: LOL, I probed your dim brain & got the reaction I wanted (you're just like a woman - easy to push your buttons)... didn't take much!
* Why are you avoiding YOUR MASSIVE FAILS LIST here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
LMAO: Hey, go ahead on Hilton - it was a contract job only! Again, unlike you, wageslave: I don't HAVE to work anymore, & run my OWN show... unlike you.
APK
P.S.=> I see gay as an aberration of nature, a genetic error (which it is, men are NOT designed to take it up the ass pal - they're designed to impregnate women, NOT ACT LIKE A WOMAN (a stupid woman, in your case), like YOU do, lol... fact)... apk
See here, he said it himself (not I) http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* LMAO!
APK
P.S.=> I tell you, my tenant and I are LAUGHING OUR ASSES OFF @ how simple it is to get the best of you dimwits, especially on my pushing "Andy Boy's buttons" & getting him to SPILL he likes dick, lol... that, & his classic consolidated FUCKUPS list here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
... apk
You like Almost ALL Ads Blocked? Write AIDSBlock (lol)... YOU NEED IT!
* R O T F L M A O...
(Especially after your massive MASSIVE fuckups below, & you started it, I merely finished it and your inferior genetic aberration brain with it... you brought it on yourself!)
APK
P.S.=> Do it soon, before your brain corrodes anymore, & it certainly HAS after your BLATANT FUCKUPS LIST you provided for everyone's amusement here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
... apk
As a resident of Southern California, and an engineer, this drought is entirely the fault of the liberal idiots in Sacramento, and the tree huggers they server. Much of California is a desert, and yes, there is a drought, and yes the population is growing. However, rather than using our BIG HUMAN BRAINS to plan ahead, scale reservoir capacity as the population grows, and building projects to bring in water from other areas, the libtards in Sacramento have sit on their collective asses and done nothing helpful, not only that, but they drained some key reservoirs to keep alive a small fish (delta smelt) that would have died out in the drought anyway when the rivers dried up naturally with this normal, centennial drought.
The eco fanatics want us to all live in mud huts, well I have news for you, that shit doesn't work when you live in a desert.
The solution to this problem is to drop a few billion (easily covered by actually using the water bills paid by residents to fund water projects, like they are supposed to) and build out a reservoir and water network similar to our power network, that can transport water from Oregon and Washington (where many locales get 100 plus inches of rain a year). You pull water from just before the mouth of the rivers and then run the pipes offshore. Local residents get all the water they are used to along the rivers, and you leave enough discharge into the ocean when wildlife like salmon need it. If you do it right, you incur very little cost beyond the pipe it'self and the cost to assemble it and anchor it. A single 100" pipe at 5 feet per second can deliver 120,000 gpm or 1,892 billion gallons which would actually cover 75% of all residential use IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR 38 million residents. I am sure that Oregon and Washington would be happy to take some of the exorbitant fees we pay for water in California and boost their economies for water that they would otherwise be throwing into the ocean. What is more this can be done with minimal environmental impact. Not zero, but minimal. We live on this planet and doing so has an impact, deal with it or kill yourself.
As I posted earlier in the thread, these are non-issues by mostly politicians/selfish/ignorant Oregon inhabitants who don't want to help/solve the problem.
1. You pull water from near the mouth of the river, from the excess that discharges into the ocean. Farmers and other water users upstream are unaffected, unless they are polluting.
2. You build enough storage in California that you don't pull any during salmon season. Salmon are unaffected, as are fishermen.
3. The actual water that Oregon and Washington dump into the ocean is thousands of times what California actually needs. Those who live in those states just have no idea how little water per person California actually uses. A single 8.5 foot pipe at (5 feet per second) would supply 75% of the entire state of California residents water needs for the year. Contrast this with the Columbia river, which discharges 265,000 cubic feet per second: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_River
1CF=7.5gal. The total annual discharge is about 62,500 billion gal. We are talking about 1.9 billion gallons redirected to California, or ~0.003%. Not something that anyone will miss in reality.
There is always going to be some obstructionist politician or piss-ant environmental group to fight this so:
4. California embargos all export to Oregon and pays zero federal taxes until the feds force Oregon politicians/government to let us PURCHASE up to 0.01% of the water they waste by dumping it into the ocean so we can grow their dariy, beef, grapes, strawberries, almonds and all the other food we export to the rest of the country, along with all of the tech we develop, biomedical research etc.
38 million people creating $1,959 Billion > 4 million people (Oregon) creating $158 Billion
Problem solved.
fine...keep your money in cali, and let me keep mine. I got no problem with that at all
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Or maybe they should just stop selling food to assholes like you can starve to death/die from malnutrition, then they can take all your water with no fuss jackass! This is what the federal government was made for and they need to force those who have an excess of water to share some with other fellow countrymen who have an immediate need and are growing the food that everyone eats, developing the technology they buy etc. The true solution is for the Federal government to seize all flowing water rights from states and then lease them back on a 5 or 10 year basis. Make the allocation of who gets what based on population and economic production and national security. No more of this entitled I might need it someday, I don't trust you because you might use more bullshit. You don't make it rain where you live or where you were born. Civilization is founded on cheap, plentiful access to basic necessities, water is one and the only reason why we are having issues with water is ignorant people like you in political office. California has 38 million people generating nearly 2 trillion of the US economy, along with a majority of the fresh produce consumed in the US. California also donates more than it gets back to the Federal government in taxes. Oregon has 4 million and generates a few hundred million in revenue, and is by the way a net drain on the federal government. If the federal government came in and forced Oregon to sell California 1% of the annual discharge of the Columbia river that now goes into the ocean, that would exceed the entire state of CA's current water budget. And the selfish assholes in Oregon wouldn't even notice a difference.
UBlock consume 63++ MB http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SCREENSHOT THERE -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
* Man, you're a DAMNED LIAR!
APK'
P.S.=> I personally have a 4 million line hosts file (took me 15++ yrs as an experiment for HOW FAR I CAN PUSH IT) - however:
Folks using my program will only have a 3-6mb one with CURRENT DATA ONLY in it!
(They can 'build it up' IF they like though, as I have but NOT TO THAT EXTENT, if they're smart... I am only doing mine as an experiment LONG TERM... you can & should ''purge" it once in a bit to be more accurate - my app provides means for it too via pings OR remove lists from my sources for hosts data).
In the end Andy?
YOU will ALWAYS LOSE to me!
Heck:
YOUR LIES SHOWN ABOVE do the job for me, along with your MASSIVE FUCKUPS LIST vs. myself, SHOWN HERE -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... do the rest... apk
Kohath - can I move to your planet of infinite resources?
Think, Brother. We long since exceeded the carrying capacity of this planet (maybe 2-3 billion) and now we have to ask how many more people before we irretrievably destroy the ecosystem called Earth?
Progress schmogress - can't afford to be goddy--goody-simple-minded on such giant issues.
UBlock consume 63++ MB http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SCREENSHOT THERE -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
* Man, you're a DAMNED LIAR!
APK'
P.S.=> I personally have a 4 million line hosts file (took me 15++ yrs as an experiment for HOW FAR I CAN PUSH IT) - however:
Folks using my program will only have a 3-6mb one with CURRENT DATA ONLY in it!
(They can 'build it up' IF they like though, as I have but NOT TO THAT EXTENT, if they're smart... I am only doing mine as an experiment LONG TERM... you can & should ''purge" it once in a bit to be more accurate - my app provides means for it too via pings OR remove lists from my sources for hosts data).
In the end Andy?
YOU will ALWAYS LOSE to me!
Heck:
YOUR LIES SHOWN ABOVE do the job for me, along with your MASSIVE FUCKUPS LIST vs. myself, SHOWN HERE -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... do the rest... apk
Everyone needs to stop posting and immediately read this book by Marc Reisner:
Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water Summary
Historians of the West have typically focused on events that opened the great landscape of the American Desert to settlers. Such events included the Lewis and Clark Expedition, wars with the Indians of the Great Plains, and the Homestead Act of 1862. New historians of the American West have been employing a political environmentalism to develop an environmental history, which has led to a number of revisionist approaches to American West narratives.
If you don't study history - we are ALL doomed to repeat it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
UBlock consume 63++ MB http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SCREENSHOT THERE -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
* Man, you're a DAMNED LIAR!
APK'
P.S.=> I personally have a 4 million line hosts file (took me 15++ yrs as an experiment for HOW FAR I CAN PUSH IT) - however:
Folks using my program will only have a 3-6mb one with CURRENT DATA ONLY in it!
(They can 'build it up' IF they like though, as I have but NOT TO THAT EXTENT, if they're smart... I am only doing mine as an experiment LONG TERM... you can & should ''purge" it once in a bit to be more accurate - my app provides means for it too via pings OR remove lists from my sources for hosts data).
In the end Andy?
YOU will ALWAYS LOSE to me!
Heck:
YOUR LIES SHOWN ABOVE do the job for me, along with your MASSIVE FUCKUPS LIST vs. myself, SHOWN HERE -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... do the rest... apk
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Who feeds cows almonds and avocados? Cows eat grasses and corn. I don't think California grows that.
And growing rice, a textbook wetland type of crop, in a place without sufficient water doesn't make a whole lot of sense. California should stick to growing things that are suited to the land available.
It's called pooling costs. That's what insurance does.
It is going to cost just like the highways but imagine no more floods (flood waters pumped to holding reservoirs or to drought-ed areas) and water enough for everyone. If we used solar power to pump and created a national water distribution network (similar to the national highway system) we could garner a lot of benefit as I'm sure floods cost, droughts cost. IMHO we need five national distribution systems. Electricity, Water, Transportation communications, and pipelines for hydrogen, natural gas oil etc). These systems could integrate with each other. Solar panels could be built along roads as shade and snow and rain protection for the roads, a national electricity distribution grid or smart grid could be built to take power from where excess was produced to where it was needed and huge water distribution systems could distribute potable water throughout the country as needed. Desalinization plants could be built on giant floating island with wind farms far offshore and moved to areas where it is cheaper to move them than pump the water. All in all this would create jobs, economic opportunity, stop droughts, save power and integrate local generated power into the national grid, and be one huge integrated system with standards that are nation wide, designed for easy repair and maintenance and gives us all power water communications and a strong national backbone for business. It will probably cost trillions but it would get people off welfare, create jobs and help rejuvenate a failing country. It needs to be done at a national level utilizing the best in technology science and engineering resources and it need to be designed to last forever as a maintainable expandable and repairable system. In reality the USA is like a ship, or a huge living organism. If we treat it this way we can make it healthier. We can appeal to greens liberals and conservatives by making roads with plants that are native to the area the go through or almost invisible when viewed from the air. Make advanced roads that are truck able 100 year concrete sections with the water communications and electrical built into them (imagine 3d road sections with easy access to water electricity (separated by walls) and communications conduits built in and replaceable wear sections so you can replace or repair the road or the whole module. Imagine nodes cut off nodes everywhere so a disaster can be routed around while it is repaired. Imagine a nuke can't take out the system because the damaged section can be isolated and repaired. We are thinking too small by thinking locally and trying to fight every minor disaster we end up getting. We need to have a huge integrated system that means farmers have access to the water they need, usage is tracked and efficient water system developed. We need a system where the effects of weather sun and disaster are averaged, where disaster areas can be isolated and quickly repaired. I can go on but I hope everyone gets the point. We need to quit talking and start designing and planning, then start building and reaping the rewards. We need super powered nation before we can go to space and start building on other worlds. A blueprint for infinite expansion to the stars by creating a super nation and eventually a super world at home where the standards and science can eventually be used to interconnect the world in a way that has never been done before.
All IMHO of course.
I'll keep living in upstate NY with my unlimited supply of fresh water from Lake Ontario. Small price to pay for some snow.
And then we found out that the rolling blackouts were largely engineered by Enron to make a profit.
But you are helped massively by the sheer amount of commerce which happens in California. It's weird you accept that money gladly and without question, yet the moment you are asked to possibly start thinking of contributing a little back so that commerce can continue, you develop short-sightedness and a bad case of Libertarianism...
"- Your app uses 37MB of RAM - A 2 million+ line hosts file uses much more RAM than that, but of course that memory isn't attributed to your app." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @01:29PM (#49909329)
See subject STUPID: My program won't generate a 2 million line hosts file dumbass!
(Not right off, as again: It took me 15++ yrs to get to a 3.5 million line one as an experiment ONLY to see how far I can push it & it's doing great, certainly BETTER THAN YOU Mr. FUCKUP -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
HOWEVER/RATHER - it will start out, WITH CURRENT DATA vs not only ads, but OTHER THREATS ONLINE TOO protecting you vs. them, @ around 3-6mb only (THAT IS WHAT GOES INTO MEMORY DUMBASS, lol).
You are stupid. Seriously fucking stupid.
"I'll be sure to let Hilton Hotels know what kind of person they're hiring" - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @01:29PM (#49909329)
Gosh, "andy": Have you lost SO BADLY you have to *try* to "resort to blackmailing me/threatening me"? Yes... go ahead stupid - lol, make me laugh... it was a CONTRACT & I could give a shit (it's done, successfully mind you, on a large server + client workstations migration & DCOM custom app migration also)!
LMAO - so you FAIL as always, even there, you pitiful little small-minded homosexual weirdo!
APK
P.S.=>
"How big is that hosts file anyway? Is it loaded by each application separately or is the OS at least efficient enough to use shared memory?" - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @01:29PM (#49909329)
You're SO stupid in fact, you had to ASK me if hosts are shared by applications - CLUE dumbass: hosts are used by the IP stack itself, in kernelmode, & webbound apps use THAT, dumbo... apk
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 6mb only w/ CURRENT data vs. threats + ads (& things a bloated browser addon can't do by a longshot & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )
Lies Andy? UBlock consume 63++ MB http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SCREENSHOT THERE -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
Man, you're a DAMNED LIAR!
---
"my question is, which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" is PAID OFF to NOT block all ads by default, dumbo -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above & a 'shitty idea' does MORE BY FAR with less & you RAN from it bitch - see 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea does." by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
Ah, so you're 'happy' being illogical & stupid? LOL, ok!
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it - it can't do that to hosts (since clarityray dumps what browser addons you use so addons are EASILY DETECTED via native browser methods & YOU'RE BLOCKED STUPID).
AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
APK
P.S.=> You've GOT to be the MOST STUPIDLY illogical moron I've *ever* met on /. ...
... apk
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 6mb only w/ CURRENT data vs. threats + ads (& things a bloated browser addon can't do by a longshot & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )
Lies Andy? UBlock consume 63++ MB http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SCREENSHOT THERE -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
Man, you're a DAMNED LIAR!
---
"my question is, which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" is PAID OFF to NOT block all ads by default, dumbo -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above & a 'shitty idea' does MORE BY FAR with less & you RAN from it bitch - see 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea does." by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
Ah, so you're 'happy' being illogical & stupid? LOL, ok!
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it - it can't do that to hosts (since clarityray dumps what browser addons you use so addons are EASILY DETECTED via native browser methods & YOU'RE BLOCKED STUPID).
AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
APK
P.S.=> You've GOT to be the MOST STUPIDLY illogical moron I've *ever* met on /. ...
... apk"my question is, which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock"
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 6mb only w/ CURRENT data vs. threats + ads (& things a bloated browser addon can't do by a longshot & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )
Lies Andy? UBlock consume 63++ MB http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SCREENSHOT THERE -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
Man, you're a DAMNED LIAR!
---
"my question is, which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" is PAID OFF to NOT block all ads by default, dumbo -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above & a 'shitty idea' does MORE BY FAR with less & you RAN from it bitch - see 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea does." by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
Ah, so you're 'happy' being illogical & stupid? LOL, ok!
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it - it can't do that to hosts (since clarityray dumps what browser addons you use so addons are EASILY DETECTED via native browser methods & YOU'RE BLOCKED STUPID).
AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
APK
P.S.=> You've GOT to be the MOST STUPIDLY illogical moron I've *ever* met on /. ...
... apk
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 6mb only w/ CURRENT data vs. threats + ads (& things a bloated browser addon can't do by a longshot & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )
Lies Andy? UBlock consume 63++ MB http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SCREENSHOT THERE -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
Man, you're a DAMNED LIAR!
---
"my question is, which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" is PAID OFF to NOT block all ads by default, dumbo -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above & a 'shitty idea' does MORE BY FAR with less & you RAN from it bitch - see 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea does." by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
Ah, so you're 'happy' being illogical & stupid? LOL, ok!
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it - it can't do that to hosts (since clarityray dumps what browser addons you use so addons are EASILY DETECTED via native browser methods & YOU'RE BLOCKED STUPID).
AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
APK
P.S.=> You've GOT to be the MOST STUPIDLY illogical moron I've *ever* met on /. ...
... apk
And where did "your" money or the ability to earn that money come from?
That's right, California.
lying again.
2nd sentence of your link:
Stage II, which includes such works as the Peripheral Canal and Sites Reservoir, was to have been built beginning in the late 1970s and 1980s – but due to concerted opposition from Northern Californians, environmentalist groups and some economic interests, as well as the state's increasing debt, attempts to begin construction have all met with failure. Parties currently receiving SWP water are also opposed to its expansion, because water rates could be raised up to 300 percent to help pay for the cost. As a result, SWP capacity falls short by an annual 2 million acre feet (2.5 km3); contractors have never received their full shares of water in the project's 51-year history.
there's also the fact it would kill the remaining salmon run, already reduced to critical levels by the existing SWP infrastructure.
and once the salmon are dead, they don't come back.
which in turn affects an extremely large portion of the California biosphere, as salmon are a linchpin species. and the salmon are historically the reason for the very fertile ground the central valley is known for, having built up nutrients in the soil over millennia of the San Joaquin and Sacremento Rivers flooding and washing the dead salmon (after they have mated and died) across the land and out to sea.
concerted opposition from Northern Californians, environmentalist groups
You have trouble reading ?
Why do you think you will be harmed if Californians have enough water?
Why do I think that? Lets see..
Well, when Waffle Iron said as long as the Californian's pay for it, I have no problems with it, you responded with "Sounds like you'd rather punish people than help them (or even allow them) to live better lives", implying that you oppose having the Californian's pay for it. Well, someone has to pay for it, and if you don't want the Californian's to pay for it, we just automatically assumed that you wanted everyone else to pay for it. And making me pay for the stupid decisions of other people absolutely harms me. It takes money away from me that I could otherwise spend on other things.
But maybe you didn't mean to imply that everyone but Californians should pay to get water to California. In which case, I invite you to correct the record now.
CA should pay for its own water projects. There's no need for anyone else to pay for them.
Um, that is exactly what Waffle Iron was saying should happen. But then you poo-pooed that. Now you support Mr Iron's suggestion?
Desalinization costs around $2000 per acre-foot.
That is 16% more than the the cost of tap water in The Netherlands (€ 1.24 / m^3). Now that does include all water treatment and transport costs, but the difference will not be an order of magnitude or anything close. Yet the country manages to be #3 in agricultural exports worldwide with an area only 0.43% of that of the U.S.
Do people seriously use acre-foots as a unit of volume?
acre-foots
acre-feet, of course. Even the plural forms of imperial units are complicated...
Or we could invest in cost-effective desalination...
Your ad here. Ask me how!
There's your problem.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Problem is that most of the oldest water rights are held by farms that produce water-intensive crops.
Stop growing water-intensive crops in a semi-desert.
No, seriously, just stop. ...
No, I meant it.
Meantime, Seattle continues to expand while using 1/4 the water per person that California uses. We use local plants instead of lawns, water deeply once a week, don't water when the sun is up (cuts salt impacts and water use in half), and recycle our grey water.
And our fusion reactor is ready to power the lasers if you try to steal our water. (no, not a joke)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Yes, but if you move to NY, you can do this: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/vid...
And I think it's obvious that's worth more than family.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
After "somehow wresting water rights" from Easterners? In case you haven't noticed, the reason the West tends to get little water these days is that all of their storms get pushed north by high pressure systems, and then land south once again smack-dab in the center of the US. Easterners tend to be desperate to get rid of their winter rains in the last few years, they don't like their flooded homes.
But if you're spoiling for a fight, which your tone through this thread suggests, then fine. You don't want to help pay for problems related to Western drought? Well then Westerners don't want to pay for any of the "omg, horrible winter" problems that people in the northeast, mid-west, and south have had for the last few years. They'll pull out of any disaster relief for the Atlantic area that gets hit by hurricanes. They'll pull out of help for people in the midwest when a tornado demolishes their towns. They'll pull out any help for people with torrential rain and the blizzards that never seemed to end this year. After all, easterners don't have to live in areas where the rains pour into their houses. They could just move west.
Or, we could decide that yes, we actually are a country that has socially evolved beyond being a few regional tribes fighting each other all the time.
But you are helped massively by the sheer amount of commerce which happens in California. It's weird you accept that money gladly and without question, yet the moment you are asked to possibly start thinking of contributing a little back so that commerce can continue, you develop short-sightedness and a bad case of Libertarianism...
"Selective Libertarianism?" Interesting idea.