Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
And klk, my proposal would not destroy agriculture as we know it. It would merely change it. Despite the very high cost of farming in California, we still have comparative advantages that allow us to farm profitably. (Oops, I forgot. Profit is evil.)
Change indeed. I very much doubt that what you are envisioning is anything like a market-rate distribution of water, then. My guess is that what you envision as marginal cost, is going to be buffered in a large number of ways.
And I have no objection to profits that aren't coming directly out of my tax dollars and into the pockets of the various owners, board members, and/or stockholders of the largest growers. In fact, I could be persuaded that there are sound cultural, historical and environmental arguments for maintaining a certain number of subsidized small, family farms and ranches. But as you well know, that's just not where most of the water (and tax money) currently goes.
Food prices will change a bit, though, and there will be less cotton planted here.
Again, the devil is in the details-- I can't imagine anything like a "free" market that could make large-scale production of walnuts or cotton economically rational. Maybe you are simply talking about a single agency that could rationalize the current swelter of water delivery/pricing systems in the state. That's been proposed for the last thirty years, but always shut down by the growers.
Contrary to popular belief, family farming is still alive and well here, and will continue to be as long as we can obtain water at a fair price.
"Family farming" in the traditional if sentimental meaning of the phrase, has never existed in California. This was never the Ohio River Valley or Sangamon. At no point in California history, has the majority of agricultural production been carried out by farms run on family labor.
"Family farm," in California, has come to mean any farm that hasn't yet gone public. Miller, Lux, Boswell, DiGiorgio, Franzia-- family farmers, all of them. Owners of vast, publicly-subsidized empires, maintained by transient 3rd world labor.
"Family farm" is sometimes used by smaller growers to refer to almost anyone with under, say, 1,000 acres (far too much irrigation acreage for family labor), and in some cases I could live with that stretch of usage, so long as we are clear on what it means. I could even be brought to support continued subsidies for many of those farms.
And there are indeed numbers of genuinely family farms, i.e., very small (typically 80 acres or less, which is usually the practical limit for most irrigation agricultural on family labor) in California, most of them dedicated to boutique crops of one sort or another. Kudos to them.
But the vast majority of production, as you know, is done by a relative handful of vast industrial enterprises with staggering quantities of public subsidy and political lobbying. Hence my queasiness with some of the rhetoric I see in the current public debate, let alone this thread.
But realistically, those subsidies are going to continue, if only because there's no other way to maintain California agriculture, short of a radical re-structuring of the rural landscape of the sort that is not going to be politically palatable to the electorate.
And yes, I did grow up on a farm.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Anyway, if we're supposed to down these smelt, how should they be prepared and/or cooked? Are they like sardines? Maybe they'd be nice in a sandwich? Braised, roasted, fried, baked, steamed? Or perhaps we're supposed to eat them raw, and nature will make us smelt-rolls.
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 9, 2009 - 05:49pm PT
|
smelt are pretty tasty, I recommend sticking a bunch on a skewer whole and cooking them over a fire. either that or fry them. Just make sure to eat them whole!!!
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
from the 2009 smelt survey (net 'em then count 'em)
from the 2002 smelt survey (ditto)
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2009 - 12:23am PT
|
franky and wes,
I still think we're having some communication issues, and I probably should let this rest. Nonetheless, I want to give it one last try.
I think it would help if I knew what you meant, franky, by "irreversible." If there is no time frame involved in reversal, your criterion of avoiding irreversible damage has no meaning. Pumpers could say that they should be allowed to pump to the point that salt water infiltrates the entire Delta since, presumably, it will only take a few hundred millenia (or maybe just a few years, if we have Nile-like flows) to reverse the damage. Conversely, if we demand no change to the Delta ecosystem, there should be no pumping.
Since you allow for pumping, your irreversiblity standard must have some time dimension. Who chooses it, and how? Wouldn't that be an economic decision?
Similarly, I'm not sure what you mean, wes, by profiting at the expense of the environment. Humanity lives at the expense of the environment. Our sheer numbers require agriculture, which by definition alters the environment. Can you think of an ethical way to reduce our population so we could all get by as hunter-gatherers? If not, then every person is, in a sense, profiting at the expense of the environment, and your prohibition of no profit from the environment or scarce resources would doom us all to instant death.
In fact, we're arguing over the appropriate compromise in this area. In a way, it's like the old, politically insensitive, joke that went something like this: A woman saw an extremely attractive man, went up to him and asked if he would make love to her for a billion dollars. He thought about it, and said that if she really gave him a billion dollars then yes, he would. She then gave him a $100.00 bill and said "follow me to my place." "What kind of a guy do you think I am?" he demanded. "That's already been established," she said. "Now we're just haggling over price."
As soon as we admit that we need some environmental alteration, we're just haggling over price.
That's it for the weekend. I hope you guys get a chance to enjoy this good weather before the storms come in and start to replenish our parched land.
John
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 10, 2009 - 06:16pm PT
|
lets see, irreversible
species going extinct?
invasive species taking over?
increased soil erosion?
another saline dust bowl ruining our lungs?
Jesus, can you stop saying the same thing over and over again? I get it man. All human activity modifies the environment, i f*#king get your point. There is water to spare from the delta, and you can put it on the land that is already f*#ked, go for it. Just try not to ruin any more land to farm on your already ruined land. You have no right to that water, why should it be yours, you can't afford to pump it to your farm, you are asking for government handouts. Handouts in the form of the water project they already built for you, and handouts in the form of a free pass on environmental destruction. As a central valley farmer, you are the biggest welfare case on this board, with a sense of entitlement bigger than a 5 year old.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2009 - 01:09pm PT
|
Wes, I don't see John as being particularly extremist in his views at all- it sounds to me that he very much advocates seeking better balance b/w the environmental & farming priorities. He is advocating using capitalist mechanisms by which to restore this balance, though- adjust the cost of water to various farmers according to the crop and actual water use. (If I misrepresent your view, JE, please clarify.)
While I do appreciate the shared view of restoring a balanced use of water, I don't think that using price controls alone will do that. There will always be corporate entities that are able to work around this, either through subsidies, subverting the politics via loopholes, or they will just plain pay the higher price, and the unrealistic practice of cotton growing (as an example) will continue to some degree.
Further, while the farming interests for water can be measured relatively easily, assigning a monetary value to the needs of the delta and the environment as a whole is far more nebulous and subjective. There needs to be some kind of relatively objective agency that can maintain watch on the big picture of the entire resource, and create policy on how the water is used for any particular interest. Unfortunately, this kind of objective view is most likely to be achieved as a governmental agency.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2009 - 02:21pm PT
|
"How do you get the ecosystem to pay for its water?"
Wes, that's a moot question that doesn't have any potential for meaningful discussion. The ecosystem has no direct monetary value until it is seen as a resource (extraction, tourism, etc.). It's value is far greater than mere $, being connected to the health, spirit, sanity and future of the country. (Ever read 'Wilderness and the American Mind'? I'm assuming you must have.) Savvy citizens and politicians recognize this, and the fact that, if it appears to have no direct monetary value, it becomes vulnerable to indifference, and abuse. A few visionary leaders recognized this, esp. in the case of particularly aesthetic environments, and created the National Parks.
It is the interest of 'wilderness for wilderness sake' (in this case, the 'environment for the environment's sake') that require protections, in the form of a relatively objective entity- and this won't be found in any corporation or association of commercial interests. Though there are obvious pitfalls to the political process, it's best potential for protection lies within the government.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 01:36am PT
|
Apogee, you fairly set forth my argument. And yes, Wes, I am intentionally anthropocentric. As for setting a price for the ecosystem, my point (that franky sees but chooses not to accept -- which is his right) is that whatever policy we pursue implicitly sets a price on maintaining that environment. If we decide that a given level of fresh water flow must remain in the Delta no matter what, we say that any environmental degradation beyond that point necessarily costs more than any possible benefit from water use elsewhere. That's where franky and I part company, because I don't believe that such a point lies where he says it does.
You're also right, apogee, that I'm trying to achieve balance in water use. By definition, marginal cost water pricing ends subsidized water delivery. It also allocates water between competing uers in a way that it is put to its highest and best use.
I'm rather surprised too, wes, by your reaction to trying to determine the highest and best use of riparian water. You vehemently pointed out that Hetch Hetchy water was the most efficient way to provide fresh water for about 2.5 million Bay Area people. Why does efficiency matter in that discussion, but in no other? I'm simply trying to be consistent but not just for consistency's sake. I think it leads to the allocation of water that is most consistent with the wishes of society as a whole.
John
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 12, 2009 - 01:48pm PT
|
JE, most of the things you say are rational, except a few key points.
You obviously don't know anything about ecology, and you should read a bit about it before you make assumptions that you could restore the ecosystem by simply turning the water back on at some point. You also have this idea that a perfect linear gradient exists between an untouched delta and a totally dried up and dead one, which is simply not the case. We also seem to have different ideas about the purely capitalistic value of the delta.
That, and your sense of entitlement.
|
|
LuckyPink
climber
the last bivy
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 04:33pm PT
|
hey.. smelt are fantastic when fried up in pork fat.. tails and heads on, big hunk of bread, sprinkle a little vinegar on them..(NOT lemon) crunch em down with Old Milwakee or better yet, Big D.
ex U-Per. LP
this is a all a huge issue in the Great Lakes.
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 12, 2009 - 04:41pm PT
|
ok, I'll bite. Wolves are not native to Idaho? Hmm, could have sworn I heard otherwise...
|
|
TheHillsideAngler
climber
modesto,ca
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 04:49pm PT
|
oh shizz......i leave ST for a while and come back to this....oh man.
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 12, 2009 - 05:05pm PT
|
yeah rokjox? how are these "native" gray wolves different from the non native canadian wolves from a couple hundred miles away? How many were there? why do you think they weren't Canadian wolves that migrated into the predator free void left by ranchers?
Also, try rereading the thread and realizing that this debate isn't really about smelt so much as the delta ecosystem. Also, Delta smelt are an officially threatened species (and an indicator species, which isn't an official designation).
Also, essentially all the produce i buy is grown locally in California, and yet, most of it doesn't come from the central valley, even though i live in it. Strange.
Your assumption about rising sea level destroying the delta show how very little you know about geomorphology and fluid dynamics. Maybe you better trust the experts in fields where your knowledge is so woefully inadequate?
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 12, 2009 - 05:14pm PT
|
Your assumption about rising sea level destroying the delta show how very little you know about geomorphology and fluid dynamics. Maybe you better trust the experts in fields where your knowledge is so woefully inadequate?
For those who can't read upthread even the tiniest little bit.
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 12, 2009 - 05:15pm PT
|
So can you explain why this horrible environmentalists wanted to bring in a non-native species to replace the supposedly existing one?
Am I going to need a tinfoil hat to hear it?
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 12, 2009 - 05:59pm PT
|
ok lets talk smelt, i bring up some points that you haven't addressed.
1. The smelt is federally listed as threatened, you claimed otherwise and were wrong.
2. You seem to have a pretty big misunderstanding of the context indicator species is used in. Indicator species is only used in the context of an ecosystem. If a scientist says an indicator species is doing poorly, you don't go out and specifically try to save that species. One would try to save its ecosystem and hope it does better as a result.
3. What leads you to your conclusion that rising sea level with doom the delta? Surely it will change it, but have you studied the geomorphology of the area enough to make conclusions? Have you done any hydrodynamic modeling? Of course you haven't, you are just making blanket statements, justifying why we shouldn't care about our environment now, as it is.
|
|
Brian Hench
Trad climber
Anaheim, CA
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 06:51pm PT
|
Rokjox makes it out to be a zero-sum game. He would have us believe that saving the smelt means decreased food production, that we can't have both.
To the extent that different crops have different water requirements, perhaps less water means farmers simply switch to a different crop with lower water requirements, rather than not planting at all? The crop might not be the same crop, such as cotton or rice. It might be wheat, corn, canola or some other crop, for example.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 07:11pm PT
|
Hope no ones saying that the screwballs
that reintroduced wolves should have been wacked
beforehand just as the smelt bleeding hearts should also
have been offed.
Look at all the fun we'd be missing if it had not happened.
Ranchers out of business due to stock predation and
Farmers out of business for lack of water for crops.
Rok - after studying up on the wolf I realize
they are as welcome as the plague, or anthrax,
or smallpox in any ecosystem. Good hunting.
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 12, 2009 - 07:35pm PT
|
What?....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!