Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
mrtropy
Trad climber
Nor Cal
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 07:44pm PT
|
"build some new dams " why not just fill the old ones- drive and look into any nor-cal res. More than enough if used wisely.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 08:23pm PT
|
Someone suggested eliminating all the irrigated
foliage along the thousands of miles of L.A.
freeways. (it just for looks, not an ecosystem)
That conservation measure alone would free up
enough water to supply the cutoff farmers
and the smelt.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 11:43pm PT
|
And that, wes, is why I advocate marginal-cost pricing of water. Our only real difference is that I not only believe that farmers have no particular entitlement to water , I believe that no one else does, either. This differentiates me from you and franky, who believe that your preferred uses of water have first call above all others. Send it to its highest and best uses (which almost certainly includes maintenance of Delta water quality at some level). As the current cost of government-supplied water rises to its marginal cost, every water user will have an economic incentive to conserve appropriately.
John
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2009 - 01:05am PT
|
Well there JE, you assume people who want to develop any natural resource have equal footing with those who want to leave it alone and the economics should determine what happens. The entirely capitalistic point of view, which essentially leaves the fate of natural environments in the hands of economists as opposed to ecologists. You present this as logical. This is the type of argument I would expect for a third rate attorney in small claims court.
Lets just make it something you might care about, besides the delta. Say El Cap has copper in it and we are back in 1870. There are some tourists in Yosemite, but not many, and they aren't generating any money. I'm a developer who has mineral rights to the area. What do you think is going to be worth more in the eyes of the economist of the era? After all, the mining industry would support a whole lot of people for awhile.
The delta is in a similar spot right now, a few people who care about it, but mostly absent in the eyes of the general population of the state. I'm sure that for a good chunk of the population it is an extremely beautiful site, or could be with proper management.
|
|
Captain...or Skully
Social climber
Idaho, also. Sorta, kinda mostly, Yeah.
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2009 - 01:07am PT
|
Diversity IS life.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2009 - 01:21am PT
|
You're going to equate the delta smelt to El Capitan?
And you wonder why more folks don't see things your way.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2009 - 01:22am PT
|
No, franky. I leave the fate of things to people. Since that leaves others, and not merely those who think like you, in charge, that seems to bother you. So be it.
I realize in your El Cap hypothetical, no one cares about the scenery but, just for historical accuracy, by 1870, there was already a thriving tourist buisness in Yosemite. The history of James Hutchings should tell you that.
By the way, I'd be curious to see the arguments of a third-rate small claims attorney. Parties must appear in pro se in small claims court. No attorney may appear unless within the exceptions of Cal. CCP Section 116.530(b).
John
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2009 - 01:22am PT
|
Just thought i'd pick something that you might care about, since it is pretty clear most of you don't see any beauty in a measly old delta.
So biggest gun wins JE?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2009 - 01:30am PT
|
Depends how you define gun, franky. My marginal cost would include a value for preserving the environmental status quo. It's just that I don't believe that value to be infinite, as you apparently do.
John
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2009 - 01:48am PT
|
Just because I think it is worth more than a few farms in the central valley doesn't mean I think it is infinitely valuable.
|
|
ß Î Ø T Ç H
climber
. . . not !
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2009 - 03:18am PT
|
bump
|
|
snaps10
Mountain climber
Visalia, CA
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2009 - 03:29am PT
|
As I see it, living in the Central Valley, and farming. The Central Valley is the conservative black eye in an otherwise liberal state. The saying is, "As goes California, so goes the rest of the country". You want a completely liberal state, you've got to choke out the conservatives somehow. Water is that suffocation. Without water, all the conservative money in the Central Valley will be gone, food will be imported, and the Liberal agenda will be in power. It's really quite brilliant.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
Monrovia, CA
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2009 - 11:06am PT
|
While the smelt issue affects more people in general I am curious why it has elicited such a pissing match in comparison to the issue of raptor closures which directly affects climbers. Having been busted for 'transgressing' I have researched that topic and can assert that it offers plenty of 'pissing potential' that is cogent to climbing; 'bad' science, no science, arbitrary land managers answerable to nobody, etc.
So, enough with the stupid little fishies!
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2009 - 11:49am PT
|
The delta had a thriving fishing industry at one point, nobody seemed to concerned about that. I'm sure a couple of people staying in Hutchings' hotel would have mattered.
I think you are wrong about the lawyer comment, I don't know anything about lawyering, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
So I want to hear your plan now. Who is going to help you quantify your variable cost of water, when those variable costs are mostly externalities.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2009 - 12:31pm PT
|
Not variable cost, franky, marginal cost, i.e, the opportunity foregone by using the next unit of water. People like you and your scientists would be most helpful there. I understand that we can't measure the cost of degrading the Delta with precision, so we'd need to give it a fairly wide berth (what I'm really saying is that I'd probably come down with a marginal cost that would lead to the same water use to maintain the Delta ecosystem that you would).
Such a system eliminates the "people vs. fish" (read: people vs. ecosystem, but really people vs. people) argument. We now have a method for showing that water use to maintain the Delta isn't some fuzzy-headed environmental abuse but, in fact, the highest and best use of the water. And, as a bonus, we provide the correct incentive for optimizing water use for all competing users. Of course, this method also leads to the possibility that the current (no pun intended) fresh water flow maintaining the Delta might not be that highest and best use.
John
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2009 - 12:50pm PT
|
Well JE, As you undoubtedly known, Marginal Cost is the cost of the next unit of production (in this case, water). It is split into two categories, fixed cost and variable cost. fixed cost is constant with respect to total quantity produced. No matter how much water you produce the fixed cost will remain the same. In our context, the fixed cost will be the physical cost of moving that much water (even that might have a slightly variable component since maintenance costs rise with more use of the pumps). Of course, these fixed costs would be much higher than they are now if you took out the government subsidies.
The interesting component of the marginal cost is the variable cost associated with internalizing the externalities associated with pumping water to the farms. Someone would have to generate a curve that would show the rate of change in cost per unit of water as a function of number of units pumped. As the total quantity of water pumped increases, the cost of the next unit of water would surely rise.
The problem with this is that you end up with the same problems, just cast in a different light.
Before your plan - Scientists say that you can't pump anymore without doing irreparable harm to the ecosystem, you should stop now. You think scientists are full of sh#t.
After your plan - Scientists give you a cost estimate you don't agree with, because you have different ideas about how much an ecosystem is worth and your plan didn't give you the results you wanted. Again, it comes back to you thinking scientists are full of sh#t.
It wouldn't be bad to implement your plan, but I'm pretty confident you wouldn't like the results if it was implemented.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2009 - 01:18pm PT
|
You're right, wes. That's why klk, who understood the radical nature of the reform I propose, commented about 80 posts ago that I obviously don't plan to run for public office anytime soon here.
John
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2009 - 01:30pm PT
|
eh, the reform you propose isn't really impressive. It is still going to come down to you trust scientists or at least someone who isn't a farmer. You are essentially just telling scientists to put their warnings in units of dollars.
I don't mind that road though, especially since it lets us really get down to the nuts and bolts of things. If you are going to throw the cost of water use in, might as well assign a real dollar cost of using pesticides, and toss in some health care costs for your labor, and probably a lot of other costs that you are freeloading on right now.
|
|
Ricardo Cabeza
Trad climber
Warner, NH
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2009 - 09:34am PT
|
I haven't read the whole thread yet, but was wondering if anyone knows if an updated version of 'Cadillac Desert' has been released?
The book is a wealth of knowledge, but it seems that in the past 20 or so years since the book was released, things have changed. And not for the better.
Reisner wrote a truly comprehensive piece with that one.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2010 - 06:46am PT
|
Smelt decision over-ruled:
"The agency's solution for shoring up the collapsing species - namely cutting water exports to California cities and farms - is "arbitrary" and "capricious"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/14/BAKO1GQMTH.DTL
That's what happens when things are decided on emotion ( *indicator species*, and similar horseshit ) instead of logic.
I like my smelt canned in oil and mustard.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!