Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
It's definitely hard to have a rational discussion when rationality itself is rejected. Denying science when it's inconvenient to your ideology is a non-starter.
They are idiots. Willfully ignorant idiots. There is no polite way to describe them.
No, you cannot discuss anything with them. You have to defeat them.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
last time I looked, the form of government in California was the same as it is in most states in the union, the exception seems to have been an overwhelming support for voting reform, which curbed many of the pernicious behaviors of the majority party out of their hands.
this took California from the divisive mess it was and provided a more representative government with the opportunity for moderate candidates to succeed. I fully expect the Californian Republican Party will figure out how to succeed, but it will not be by supporting the current Republican Party platform.
further, as metrics are developed for measuring the degree of gerrymandering, and the most interesting is the concept of "voting efficiency" the courts will find more districting plans unlawful. While it is up to the states to decide how to draw the districts, and how to conduct a vote, it is the role of the federal courts (and federal government) to ensure that we have "one person, one vote" guaranteed by the Constitution.
eliminating partisan construction of these voting districts will go a long way towards creating a workable government. It has in California...
If you have a beef with what is going on in California, you need look no further than your own neighbors, who vote, like you, for candidates that represent them. If you find your candidates are not getting elected, it isn't because "the system is rigged," it is because the majority of voters in your district don't agree with you.
This isn't something to blame on Sacramento... or the mysterious "them," "them" are you neighbors.
As far as water is concerned, by far and away, agriculture in California claims most of it. The last time I looked, agribusiness is not a state institution. When you look at the fraction of the California economy that is generated by agribusiness (2%), it doesn't represent the fraction to that economy that the water consumption represents (70 to 80%). You could ask the question: why should the state pay for more water than it already does for agribusiness?
Think about letting the Tulare Basin refill back to its former self, letting the riparian areas restore, in that vast section of the state... it would be a wonderful place for people to come and see and recreate in, it would restore a huge ecological system. What would be the economic tradeoff? would the tourism gains offset the agricultural loss? The leisure and hospitality sector of the Californian economy generates 4 times as many jobs (and is increasing) as the agriculture sector (which is decreasing).
So when ranting... one might examine just what the rant is about... it is easier to blame your woes on some conspiracy, much harder to admit that you are in disagreement with the majority of the people in your state.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
Blue ;Did you get enough attention now?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 8, 2017 - 01:37pm PT
|
Hartouni, do we need more water storage?
Do we need to pay billions of dollars for a useless 'bullet train'?
That's what I thought...
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
...do we need more water storage?
Why would you think more water storage infrastructure is needed, when most CA reservoirs are at historic lows? That really doesn't make much sense.
Curt
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Why have any reservoirs then, Curt?
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
Why have any reservoirs then, Curt?
Really? So, filling the existing reservoirs before building new ones seems like a bad idea to you?
Curt
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Fill them before you build them? That's backwards, Curt.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
Fill them before you build them? That's backwards, Curt.
Oh for fux sake.
Curt
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I think we can ask both questions... and answer them somewhat rationally...
you assume you know what my answer is, and you aren't interested in the reasons why I would give those answers.
your rant has no argument, it is a rant against a false boogie-man you've constructed (or have had constructed for you), an assertion that we "need" more water storage...
if you can peel back one layer and understand where the water is going, how it is used, we can begin to answer that question.
of the 46000 million gallons of California water use in 2005, 22000 Mgal are surface fresh water.
Of that 16000 Mgal are used for irrigation, that is 72%. An additional 8600 Mgal is drawn from the aquifers, 78% of that is also used for irrigation.
now your question is much sharper, what do we gain by increasing water storage for irrigation vs. what we might loose if we reduce irrigation demand
reducing irrigation demand doesn't necessarily mean reducing agriculture, it might increase some agricultural product prices...
since most of those products are sold elsewhere, Californians don't necessarily pay for the increases, but building major infrastructure in California will be paid for by Californians. When does the gain in agricultural productivity "pay back" the Californians if they support increased infrastructure for water storage?
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
A Conjunctive Use (CU)/Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) policy is the answer to California's water management challenges, especially in the context of a warming climate & growing population.
Cost-effective subsurface storage of water resources eliminating the enormous evaporation waste of surface storage is the answer NOT more dams.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/035013
Projected longer-term droughts and intense floods underscore the need to store more water to manage climate extremes. Here we show how depleted aquifers have been used to store water by substituting surface water use for groundwater pumpage (conjunctive use, CU) or recharging groundwater with surface water (managed aquifer recharge, MAR). Unique multi-decadal monitoring from thousands of wells and regional modeling datasets for the California Central Valley and central Arizona were used to assess CU and MAR. In addition to natural reservoir capacity related to deep water tables, historical groundwater depletion further expanded aquifer storage by ~44 km3 in the Central Valley and by ~100 km3 in Arizona, similar to or exceeding current surface reservoir capacity by up to three times. Local river water and imported surface water, transported through 100s of km of canals, is substituted for groundwater (≤15 km3 yr−1, CU) or is used to recharge groundwater (MAR, ≤1.5 km3 yr−1) during wet years shifting to mostly groundwater pumpage during droughts. In the Central Valley, CU and MAR locally reversed historically declining water-level trends, which contrasts with simulated net regional groundwater depletion. In Arizona, CU and MAR also reversed historically declining groundwater level trends in active management areas. These rising trends contrast with current declining trends in irrigated areas that lack access to surface water to support CU or MAR. Use of depleted aquifers as reservoirs could expand with winter flood irrigation or capturing flood discharges to the Pacific (0–1.6 km3 yr−1, 2000–2014) with additional infrastructure in California. Because flexibility and expanded portfolio options translate to resilience, CU and MAR enhance drought resilience through multi-year storage, complementing shorter term surface reservoir storage, and facilitating water markets.
Enhancing drought resilience with conjunctive use and managed aquifer recharge in California and Arizona
Bridget R Scanlon1, Robert C Reedy1, Claudia C Faunt2, Donald Pool3 and Kristine Uhlman1
Published 8 March 2016 • © 2016 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 11, Number 3
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Don't like to asked to conserve water and be part of a community that depends on your participation?
Move to some where conserving water and resources is laughed at, like hell.
I like conserving water and other resources.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
One can only guess how the new gop became synonymous with fact-free belief systems; but the best guess is once you move a base to being fact-free you can easily manipulate them with manufactured indignation and outrage and thus it's much, much easier to control as we've just witnessed in both the election and this thread.
Predictable as dirt.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Healthcare is NOT a function of the Federal Government, idiot! Pick up a Constitution.
It's right there in the Constitution, specifically mentioned as a right.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
One can only guess how the new gop became synonymous with fact-free belief systems; but the best guess is once you move a base to being fact-free you can easily be manipulated with manufactured indignation and outrage and thus much, much easier to control as we've just witnessed in both the election and this thread.
Yes, that's in fact exactly how religion works, too.
Curt
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
"promote the general welfare" of the citizenry.
The founders did not intend by that phrase what liberals now interpret it to mean.
There is no good greater than the Public Health.
You cannot fairly conflate "public health" with publicly-supported health-insurance. The former doesn't imply the latter, and the latter doesn't even obviously contribute to the former.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
dirtbag:
They are idiots. Willfully ignorant idiots. There is no polite way to describe them.
No, you cannot discuss anything with them. You have to defeat them.
Typical frustrated liberal response.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
You cannot fairly conflate "public health" with publicly-supported health-insurance. The former doesn't imply the latter, and the latter doesn't even obviously contribute to the former.
Look, I know you're not even remotely interested in facts, but you're ignoring every major study done to date on this subject. Every single one (World Health Organization, Commonwealth fund, etc.) shows that single-payer, universal healthcare does indeed result in superior public health outcomes--and at roughly half the cost of our current system.
Curt
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
We need more empty reservoirs Gawdamnit, and lots more signs on I-5 bitching about water!!
Can't you people read? Sheesh..
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!