Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Who decided we have to use Delta Smelt as our "inidicators species"?
Why can't we use coyotes and rattlesnakes (both plentiful around here) as our inidicators species?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
Fet, don't you think it's possible, with the right minds and the proper will, to do it all?
Of course it's possible, but it would take a major political effort to change the way things are done, so the right thing may never happen. Water rights that have been in place since 1920 are not going to be changed easily.
What's lame is instead of acknowledging the real issue the right wing says "enviro-nazis are to blame for trying to save a 2" fish."
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Who decided we have to use Delta Smelt as our "indicators species"?
Nobody, even Chaz, wants to see a species disappear. AND THEY WON'T, WE HAVE THE SOLUTION!
Anybody who disputes the solutions, you'd have to conclude, must have another agenda.
Another thing I came across was the quantity of Smelt dying in the turbines. Raises questions.....
What's lame is instead of acknowledging the real issue the right wing says "enviro-nazis are to blame for trying to save a 2" fish."
They have a fix, man...do you acknowledge that?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
Why can't we use coyotes and rattlesnakes (both plentiful around here) as our inidicators species?
Chaz I hope you're being facetious and really aren't that dumb.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Fet, I think you're the one trying to pin this on 'right-wingers' and fail to recognize the real roadblocks to Cal water reform.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Unfortunately blue, I don't rely on "my own words" for the truth. I rely on experts who have actually studied the complex issues in question.
//I guess that is the big difference between us and explains why we never agree. I base my opinions on what has actually been studied while you base your beliefs on whatever agrees with your preconceived notions.
//
I already asked you to share a good solution for everybody. Care to answer, Wes?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
Bluey, screens may work and be the most economic way to maintain the smetl and eco-system. But if the screens just save one species, and don't help the eco-system another species will just take over it's spot as endangered and we'll be right back where we started.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
But if the screens just save one species, and don't help the eco-system another species will just take over it's spot as endangered and we'll be right back where we started.
So we should never pump water out of the Delta? WTF?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Bluey,
With my tongue firmly in my cheek, I tried to convey some of my frustration at the tone that this topic inevitably engenders, and the tremendous difficulty of finding a solution. The "restoration" of the San Joaquin took a horrific toll in human misery in these parts, and our poorest and most vulnerable residents here have borne most of it.
It boils my blood to read comments about how the sufferers here are simply deluded by right-wingers. Not true. They suffer because of a political decision we made (that's probably the correct one, although our reasoning is suspect and likely to result in much needless tragedy in rural areas). In other drought years, we allocated more water for farming. We allocate less now because we decided it was better to allocate more for preserving and (we hope) restoring the San Joaquin ecosystem and fisheries.
This is a decision about competing human values. We see it in the posts suggesting that we get rid of the golf courses, lawns, farmers, fish, etc., etc. Since we're in California, all of the proposals involve pain for someone else, and none for us.
It's also brought about the worst features of humanity. An attorney for a group prominent in litigating to increase water flow in the San Joaquin River stated, on the record and before the TV cameras, that maybe the unemployed, penurious farm workers should just return to Mexico. I know this attorney. He is not a monster, but that is really what he thinks (even though his supporters will say otherwise). There are others around here that would love to hang every San Joaquin River fisherman, not to mention most of the Bay Area residents. As I said, it's ugly.
To me, the only answer involves recognizing that this isn't a religious issue. It's a difficult attempt to allocate a scarce resource among competing users. When, on another thread, I made a modest proposal to use Hetch Hetchy water to restore the Delta, wes took issue with me because that water is the most efficient way to provide fresh water to 2.5 million people. I think wes is correct, but I think he needs to allow all potential users to have the benefit of the same reasoning.
If we make ecological purity of the San Joaquin drainage our only water use criterion, we invite our own religious war. As others have stated, the west has been plagued by water disputes since the coming of the white man. Germany had its 30 Years War. Our water wars have the English and French beat already in duration, and I see no end in sight unless we tone down our emotions and our rhetoric, start showing some real respect for those with whom we disagree (and who will pay for our policy choices) and genuinely try to act fairly.
I'm sorry to babble for so long, but the tone of this thread -- and the consequences of our actions, that I see every day -- really got to me.
John
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
Bluey I'm just pinning the falsification of the issue on right wingers as seen in the video on the first post of this thread.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
So we should never pump water out of the Delta? WTF?
No, we should pump out as much as possible without destroying the eco-system. The endangered species allows us to see what that limit is.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
John makes some good points. We are all (including fish and ecosystems) fighting for a necessary and limited resource.
I think we're on the right track, Arnie even see's the problem now. He's threatening massive vetoes until the water sh#t is somewhat decided upon.
F*#king politicians. Most of them don't really give a crap about Smelt, Salmon, farmers, or you....
Arnie seems to be getting firmer on resolving this though...somewhat.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
Good post John.
These initial water allocation decisions were made long ago. People came to depend on what they were allocated, even though it wasn't the most fair or economically sound way to allocate the water and didn't really take into account maintaining the health of the rivers at all.
Along comes the endangered species act which has "teeth" to make changes. People that then lose water are quick to blame the enviro-nazis and smelt, but you don't hear them or Sean Hannity saying "why are we using so much water in other areas that are much less economically and environmentaly important". They just go after the easy target.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
hey j el
with other topics, you've invariably responded that the market is the answer. but here, you draw back.
as you know, water is socialized in california, and it is most heavily subsidized for the wealthiest corporate agribusiness users. that's the basic problem.
small, family farmers-- i.e., real family farmers, holders of farms where most or at least a significant portion of the labor is done by family labor--make up almost none of the state's production. even the next tier of "family" farms, farms of less than a thousand acres where most of the labor is done by underpaid transients, barely make a blip on our annual averages.
the deserving handful of "family farms" could easily be subsidized if we believe (as i do) that it is worth for historic and cultural reasons to preserve a fabric of small farmers and ranchers.
where's your von mises now, baby?
(just kidding-- if i had a pic of ceiling cat to post, i would.)
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Wes offered his wisdom;
1) AgriBusiness relies on boom and bust markets to rake in profits. They gamble with OUR resources. Sometimes it works out, they profit and you get veggies. When it doesn't they ask for bailouts and/or bitch about their "entitlement" to water. Your stance encourages their wasteful behavior.
2) Better management of AgriBusiness, with emphasis on sustainable practices rather than short term profits, would reduce farmer's water requirements. Short term profits would suffer. Boo fuking hoo.
3) An intact, healthy ecosystem the size of the Delta system is worth much more than all the central valley AgriBusiness combined.
and I somewhat agree with that. He just seems a bit Agro on AgriBusiness. That is, the large scale production of agriculture for profit is somewhat undesired.
Wes is so smart!
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
small, family farmers-- i.e., real family farmers, holders of farms where most or at least a significant portion of the labor is done by family labor--make up almost none of the state's production. even the next tier of "family" farms, farms of less than a thousand acres where most of the labor is done by underpaid transients, barely make a blip on our annual averages.
Thanks to Cesar Chavez.
The small family farmers were run out of business clear back in the 60's by a confluence of big labor and big business.
Big business couldn't have done it alone without Cesar's help.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Something of a thread-drift, but this thread provides a great example of the 'threadkiller' phenom described here:
http://supertopo.com/climbers-forum/979224/Top_ten_threadkillers_and_a_claim_to_the_title
I've noticed this pattern of late: an OT thread starts that gets a bunch of people ranting and raving, making hyperbolic, extremist statements and calling the other side all manner of names, and generally being very polarized in their positions.
Then, someone comes in with a relatively balanced perspective, and rationally and articulately states their position...suddenly, the thread activity slows way down, and oftentimes dies completely. JE's post above is a good example of this.
I wonder why this happens? Do some people just have a level of cache within this group that their word seals any further discussion? (Nah, can't be that- everybody seems to get slammed by somebody on ST.) Or does a respectful writing mannerism that states one's opinion rationally and articulately make all the other ragers kinda feel silly, and just slink away? I swear, it seems like people just like any opportunity to bitch, complain and engage in e-thuggery when they possibly can. Meaningful, productive discussions are besides the point, it seems.
Interesting pattern.
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 9, 2009 - 11:49am PT
|
Well, it didn't really kill the thread for me. Again, it is terrible that people will be unemployed, but they are farming crops that demand a lot of water, and they are doing it in the desert. Even while allowing enough water through the pumps, and running the pumps in a way that doesn't turn the whole delta into a whirlpool, there is still a huge farming industry in the central valley. If part of it has to get cut in a drought, so be it.
These people must know that they are in a precarious place, we should not propagate the illusion that there is a ton of water to go around. We tend to feel much regret for farmers when they can't grow crops, but none for people in other high risk professions that don't make it big. We can't compromise the environment to keep a few high risk employees in business for one more year. If you left it up to the central valley farmers, I assure you that there would be enough of them willing to pump the delta dry that it would happen.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Franky, explain to me what California should use it's water for and how it should be allocated.
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 9, 2009 - 12:35pm PT
|
eh, they should use it for farming, recreation, maintaining a healthy environment, urban and industrial uses, and every other thing one would use water for (besides golf courses and lawn grass).
A committee of scientists should decide what the minimum flows are in each river, and whatever is left over can be allocated by crooked politicians in the farm lobby's pocket for whatever they choose. The water will be transported in a way that is approved by the same committee of scientists, and maybe a few extra engineers. There is no room for anyone who is not educated in biology or ecology in this committee, as the environment does not car how much water industry or farming "needs".
Of course, farmers would just pump groundwater until the central valley becomes a massive sink hole in this case, so one would need an intelligent ground water management plan as well.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!