California has a lot of water, as always.

[Crick]

California IS suffering from a drought. The progs aren't responsible for that. The snow pack IS 25% of "average". There is no doubt of that. The progs, through misuse of legislation have caused the problem to be worse than it is.

You can't blame the drought on them. You can blame the idiotic actions they are taking for making it worse however.

Astounding! One denier correcting another. Where could this lead?

 

[Crick]

Elektra, you introduced yourself to me as someone with a business degree from FAU.

 

[Gracie]

Todays news:

California water-wasters elude fines as drought persists - AOL.com

 

[Gracie]

Meanwhile, last night I took a quick shower. Plugged the hole, then bailed out the water in the tub. (two 5 gallon old paint containers that I cleaned up0 was enough to water all my potted plants. ALL of them. The left over I tossed on the lawn.

This is 1/4th of my yard. The rest is not being watered except the apple and plum tree. And I keep the bird bath filled so they can drink and bathe.

 

[Gracie]

I use the hose water to do the veggies I am growing. I don't want shampoo and soap in that, so they get the fresh stuff, lol.

Last year, I sold most of my plants. Dug them all up, stuck them in shitty looking plastic pots. Got 85 bucks for the whole pile of them. Then I cut and regrew new plants from the ones I kept. The only thing in the ground here is the 2 fruit trees, 3 small shrubs, a rose bush and a banana plant. Everything..and I mean EVERYTHING is now in pots. I collected nice ones at yard sales and the swap meet. Even used an old beat up wheel barrow as a planter. The brussell sprouts, strawberries, onions are in an old book shelf I laid on its back the filled with soil and raised up on two saw horses. Those plastic bins people store stuff, I drilled holes in and inside those are the zucchini and tomatoes and cauliflower. The grass is still green in some spots and as you can see from the pics, the section I fenced off for my little lawn area is spotty. But it will grow. I might dig up some grass from way back in the back to fill those spots since I'm gonna let it die back there anyway. May as well save some for spotty areas.

Anyway....the shower gallon thing worked wonderfully. I will have more water to spare when we make the washing machine dump its water in the trash can instead of going down the drain. That, I can use in the front yard. At least its nothing but juniper and drought tolerant plants and not one speck of grass anywhere. All dirt. Might get some gravel to make it look nicer.

 

[Manonthestreet]

They pumped all that water into Ocean Californians lose 800 000 acre-feet of water to 305 minnows Farm Press Blog Californians lose 800,000 acre-feet of water to 305 minnows
A Tale of Four Droughts
To paraphrase Tacitus, they make a desert and call it liberal.

 

[elektra]

No, SOUTHERN California is a desert. Northern California is temperate. How the hell do you think those Giant Sequoia's grew there? The Central Valley is desert up to about Fresno. North of that the rainfall increases. Further the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains, while desert, DO generate orographic precipitation so are probably no longer arid enough to be considered desert. I just haven't bothered to check.

westwall; You are the one cherry picking here. I am a scientist. I don't cherry pick, nor do I allow personal opinion to color data. As far as your three strike bullshit, you can shove that right up your keester.

The Central Valley is not Northern California!

Are talking about Southern California or Northern? Or should we classify something as Central, cause you seem all over the place as far as the trees go, Northern California has to be north of the Delta, The Sequias 35 miles east of the Central Valley are 100's of miles south of the Sequoia's of Northern California, neither of which are in danger of dying because of what youa as a "scientists" (do you get a certificate to call yourself a scientist or do you get to just use the name because your "educated" and working for the government?)

East or North or Central, lets be scientific, okay, we are talking about something serious.

westwall; Northern California is temperate. How the hell do you think those Giant Sequoia's grew there?

westwall; Those big, funny mountains to the east of the Central Valley have sequoia's. They are 35 miles as the crow flies from the central valley

Yea, you know McPhee, good friend? Right, I say acquaintance at best, and you helped him so much as in you are named in his book? Maybe you are, but honestly, you seem awfully unscientific.

For instance, much of the snowpack melted in February, did it not? Literally ran off, into the Delta, ran right by Vallejo, I am sure it ran right past Trader Vic's, right. So what does a measurement in March mean, really. That you are still ignoring the fact that the Central Valley is a desert, that its always relied on Water Projects built by man to run those industrial farms.

You are all over the place with the Sequoias, but right because they are everywhere but you did seem to describe southern California sequoias as being hundreds of miles north, in Northern California, of course we could state they are west of the Central Valley, in Big Sur, and that would be fact as well.

You know, you state you agree with me most the time, but honestly I think that is bull, your posts in response to me are never in agreement, and have a certain personal tone I find almost offensive, like you really do not agree. I mean qualifying your statement with, you agree most the time, is simply a trick for many to validate their position, which is does not.

I think Westwall does not like me or my posts, I mean if westwall was smart westwall would not like me, hence our tit for tat and westwall's desire for me to pound sand.

You agree all the time but this time I am wrong? That is a strawman many times, validating yourself, maybe you used it inadvertently but I doubt it very much. It is a simple tactic, nothing more.

Westwall, all your posts are spot on and factual but this time you failed allowing your emotion to effect your judgement, you got personal in your first post and that is not like you. Everything after that was opinion you attempted to validate with Google searches.

I wish this was not the truth, but it is.

See how that works, pretty effective.

Most of the time I agree with your posts. Go back and look at the number of times I have agreed, or thanked your posts. I'm a scientist. I have been for longer than I'll wager you have been alive. John is a good friend of mine. I also helped get his foot in the door for his research on "Waiting For a Ship" thanks to my friends who at the time worked for APL. You are locked in a meme. San Diego is desert but go up to Julian and Idyllwild and the mountains in between and you have pine forest. California is made up of micro climates all over the place. The Mojave is a Basin and Range geomorphic province. That means you can have 130 degree temps at Badwater in DV and right next door you can have snow on the top of Telescope Peak.

You are thinking totally one dimensionally and ignoring actual facts. This weakens your overall argument. I can't stand extremists of any stripe and in this case it is you who are taking the extremist POV.

Micro Climates? Wow, you mean like sage, where I live? Seems like a stones throw to Idyllwild, Pine forests in between, yes and no, definitely not anything approaching continuous.

I know your posts, of late, I spoke of how I have felt, and in this OP you are off by a mile. I read and have most of McPhee's books, including Waiting for a ship. I have lived in the desert, the coast, from san diego to 29 palms, all the way to Vacaville, lived in Benicia for years, I visit carmel often, traveling through Bakersfield, on the south end of the Sierra's. I know California as well as anybody. Anza is between the places you speak of, not many pine trees there. Not any Red Mountain either. But there are Pines. Which means what? Certainly does not disagree with the OP of mine.

Facts, one dimensional, come on, now you are very weak, are you arguing that California does not have plenty of water.
Are you going to state that the government will not distort the facts to build a big water project? Will you state that Solar Farm construction is not using millions of gallons of water for dust control, it is in the Environmental Impact Statements.

One dimensional, I have put out more fact in this thread than you have responded with.

Lets talk rain, San Francisco airport is at 105% wy to date, yes? Mt. Shasta 102%, wy to date? Yes?

How about Bowman dam, 104%, Davis Experimental farm 102%, Stony Gorge, Whiskey Town Reservoir, Modesto AP, over a 100%

Cedarville 120%, Susanville 135%.

I contend that California has plenty of water, are you going to claim otherwise? Yea, the lake Tahoe area sucks right now, about 50% wy to date, give or take, according to noaa. Big deal, that is why we get water from the Feather river. The Feather river is fine, I guess at about 85%, without adding and averaging the 40 some stations totals.

westwall, normally your post are tight, but honestly your post # was not, and honestly I do question a few of your recent posts you have replied to of mine.

The extremist view is one as you began your response to me, if you have agreed and thanked all kinds of my posts, from a intellectual point of view you know I am prepared to provide links, books, and many sources to support my OP's. I do not merely have a title and that is it. When have I not followed up, been kind and civil to those who reply with facts and logical opinions.

Westwall, what have you offered, instead of stating Democrats, you use the term "progs"? It is Democrats that control the politics of water in California. Did you take a offence hence you can not state who we are speaking of?

Westwall, we have just finished the 5th month of this rainy season, yet your reply that we are in a drought for the entire state? You even posted a rainfall total for one tiny place, many stations in California are over a 100% wy to date.

Smiths River alone can be counted on for over 80 inches of water.

Yes there are many micro climates, I picked the data from noaa, to counter the extreme one sided view so many other threads portray.

At least my threads include the politics, the money, the power, and greed with lots of facts. You call this view way off base, one dimensional, extremist?

No westwall, the only extreme view was yours, nobody has suffered a drought, we have had democrat restrictions on water delivered to farmers for more years than we have had drought. Drought is not a crisis, Democrats are.

This is the best source for accurate water levels.

California Data Exchange Center


You claim all these rivers are above normal levels but the reality is far different. Here is the Feather River... as you can see PART of it is above normal. The rest on the other hand is at, or below.

FEATHER RIVER
OROVILLE ORO 3,537,577 760.12 1,773,853 2,530 50% 2,562,226 69 750 2,067 1,584,739
ANTELOPE ANT 22,566 5,002.27 22,815 0 101% 18,627 122 ---- ---- 20,088
FRENCHMAN FRD 55,477 5,558.59 20,249 17 37% 38,328 53 ---- ---- 27,986
LAKE DAVIS DAV 83,000 5,764.60 48,101 0 58%


I have already agreed with you that the democrat controlled State government has exacerbated the drought issue. What I dislike about your post in this case is you take the typical short term view of the AGW proponents who look at one warm day and say "look! Evidence of global warming!" You are ignoring some very real facts about the water situation in Cali. December was very, very good for Norcal, it added a ton of water to the system. However the south is still hurting. And badly.

Yes, Cali has a lot of water. Yes, the policies adopted by the state government are causing massive problems. There is no doubt of that. There is also no doubt that if the drought conditions continue, the problem will get worse. I am far from an alarmist. Idiots around here are bleating about how low the lakes are.... I remind them that 1992 was the lowest level for Tahoe with a level two feet below what we have now. But the issue is not one that should be treated in a cavalier manner. You state that most of Casli is desert. That is not correct. Most of southern Cali is indeed desert, but not all. Those areas provide essential runoff that is used in the south along with the three aqueducts that bring water in from north and east to LA.

There are good and bad Dems. Just like there are good and bad Repubs. The Dems who are the worst are those that identify themselves as progressives. We are being invaded by them right now and it takes tremendous resources to keep the bastards in check. Just refrain from painting all Dems with one brush. Like I said, generalizations such as those weaken your arguments.

Generalizations weaken arguments? Like the dozens you presented in this thread?

California IS suffering from a drought. The progs aren't responsible for that. The snow pack IS 25% of "average". There is no doubt of that. The progs, through misuse of legislation have caused the problem to be worse than it is.
You can't blame the drought on them. You can blame the idiotic actions they are taking for making it worse howe

Westwall, your statement now is much different than what you began with, but you continually para-phrase my facts, casting them as false and misleading when they are fact. Is it "progs" or "democrats" that run California? Democrats is the factual reality. Hardly generalizing or misleading when I state that as fact, but you seem to wish to distract from the facts.

This is the best source for accurate water levels.
California Data Exchange Center
You claim all these rivers are above normal levels but the reality is far different. Here is the Feather River... as you can see PART of it is above normal. The rest on the other hand is at, or below

I did not make a claim, I presented facts from noaa, from stations that monitor the amount of rain that fell this year. Westwall are you going to disparage the data from NOAA?! Most likely the California Data Exchange Center you used works hand and hand with the stations NOAA uses.

The best source, why not just state your post is infallible?

http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/monthly_precip.php

 

[elektra]

So maybe California won't be broken off by an earthquake and drift out to sea.

Instead it'll just turn to dust and be blown out to sea.

OK, now where's the downside for the rest of the country in that?

The price of the produce you eat, is the downside.

 

[elektra]

Elektra doesn't know diddly squat but likes to pretend to know diddly squat. Paso and King City are nowhere near her "graft".

Meh. She/he is an idiot and no longer worth my time.

I don't pretend, I just presented the King City and Paso Robles data from NOAA, the same information that is used by the sources that Westwall and Old Crock quote.

Gracie, I presented a fact about King City and Paso, that you call me an idiot, certainly proves your intelligence is at a much lower level than that of an idiot, at least if I use your logic and argument as based on fact.

This was my source, which I did not include in my post, simply to see how many idiots would disagree with facts based upon their assumptions and prejudices.

http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/monthly_precip.php

 

[Politico]

So maybe California won't be broken off by an earthquake and drift out to sea.

Instead it'll just turn to dust and be blown out to sea.

OK, now where's the downside for the rest of the country in that?

The price of the produce you eat, is the downside.

The price of Kalifornia going away................priceless.

 

[Crick]

Elektra, given the large number of values in your table for southern California far under 100% in the "Percent Water Year to Date"; ie, the percent of average rainfall to this date, on what do you base your claim that California has lots of water?

Whenever you read data that large numbers of other people are also reading and conclude that they mean precisely the opposite everyone else concludes they mean, I think I can guarantee you that the likeliest explanation is not that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

And if you are some sort of scientist, why did you tell me that you had a business degree from FAU? Is that in addition to some sort of science degree? If so, in what science field were your studies?

 

[westwall]

No, SOUTHERN California is a desert. Northern California is temperate. How the hell do you think those Giant Sequoia's grew there? The Central Valley is desert up to about Fresno. North of that the rainfall increases. Further the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains, while desert, DO generate orographic precipitation so are probably no longer arid enough to be considered desert. I just haven't bothered to check.

westwall; You are the one cherry picking here. I am a scientist. I don't cherry pick, nor do I allow personal opinion to color data. As far as your three strike bullshit, you can shove that right up your keester.

The Central Valley is not Northern California!

Are talking about Southern California or Northern? Or should we classify something as Central, cause you seem all over the place as far as the trees go, Northern California has to be north of the Delta, The Sequias 35 miles east of the Central Valley are 100's of miles south of the Sequoia's of Northern California, neither of which are in danger of dying because of what youa as a "scientists" (do you get a certificate to call yourself a scientist or do you get to just use the name because your "educated" and working for the government?)

East or North or Central, lets be scientific, okay, we are talking about something serious.

westwall; Northern California is temperate. How the hell do you think those Giant Sequoia's grew there?

westwall; Those big, funny mountains to the east of the Central Valley have sequoia's. They are 35 miles as the crow flies from the central valley

Yea, you know McPhee, good friend? Right, I say acquaintance at best, and you helped him so much as in you are named in his book? Maybe you are, but honestly, you seem awfully unscientific.

For instance, much of the snowpack melted in February, did it not? Literally ran off, into the Delta, ran right by Vallejo, I am sure it ran right past Trader Vic's, right. So what does a measurement in March mean, really. That you are still ignoring the fact that the Central Valley is a desert, that its always relied on Water Projects built by man to run those industrial farms.

You are all over the place with the Sequoias, but right because they are everywhere but you did seem to describe southern California sequoias as being hundreds of miles north, in Northern California, of course we could state they are west of the Central Valley, in Big Sur, and that would be fact as well.

You know, you state you agree with me most the time, but honestly I think that is bull, your posts in response to me are never in agreement, and have a certain personal tone I find almost offensive, like you really do not agree. I mean qualifying your statement with, you agree most the time, is simply a trick for many to validate their position, which is does not.

I think Westwall does not like me or my posts, I mean if westwall was smart westwall would not like me, hence our tit for tat and westwall's desire for me to pound sand.

You agree all the time but this time I am wrong? That is a strawman many times, validating yourself, maybe you used it inadvertently but I doubt it very much. It is a simple tactic, nothing more.

Westwall, all your posts are spot on and factual but this time you failed allowing your emotion to effect your judgement, you got personal in your first post and that is not like you. Everything after that was opinion you attempted to validate with Google searches.

I wish this was not the truth, but it is.

See how that works, pretty effective.

Most of the time I agree with your posts. Go back and look at the number of times I have agreed, or thanked your posts. I'm a scientist. I have been for longer than I'll wager you have been alive. John is a good friend of mine. I also helped get his foot in the door for his research on "Waiting For a Ship" thanks to my friends who at the time worked for APL. You are locked in a meme. San Diego is desert but go up to Julian and Idyllwild and the mountains in between and you have pine forest. California is made up of micro climates all over the place. The Mojave is a Basin and Range geomorphic province. That means you can have 130 degree temps at Badwater in DV and right next door you can have snow on the top of Telescope Peak.

You are thinking totally one dimensionally and ignoring actual facts. This weakens your overall argument. I can't stand extremists of any stripe and in this case it is you who are taking the extremist POV.

Micro Climates? Wow, you mean like sage, where I live? Seems like a stones throw to Idyllwild, Pine forests in between, yes and no, definitely not anything approaching continuous.

I know your posts, of late, I spoke of how I have felt, and in this OP you are off by a mile. I read and have most of McPhee's books, including Waiting for a ship. I have lived in the desert, the coast, from san diego to 29 palms, all the way to Vacaville, lived in Benicia for years, I visit carmel often, traveling through Bakersfield, on the south end of the Sierra's. I know California as well as anybody. Anza is between the places you speak of, not many pine trees there. Not any Red Mountain either. But there are Pines. Which means what? Certainly does not disagree with the OP of mine.

Facts, one dimensional, come on, now you are very weak, are you arguing that California does not have plenty of water.
Are you going to state that the government will not distort the facts to build a big water project? Will you state that Solar Farm construction is not using millions of gallons of water for dust control, it is in the Environmental Impact Statements.

One dimensional, I have put out more fact in this thread than you have responded with.

Lets talk rain, San Francisco airport is at 105% wy to date, yes? Mt. Shasta 102%, wy to date? Yes?

How about Bowman dam, 104%, Davis Experimental farm 102%, Stony Gorge, Whiskey Town Reservoir, Modesto AP, over a 100%

Cedarville 120%, Susanville 135%.

I contend that California has plenty of water, are you going to claim otherwise? Yea, the lake Tahoe area sucks right now, about 50% wy to date, give or take, according to noaa. Big deal, that is why we get water from the Feather river. The Feather river is fine, I guess at about 85%, without adding and averaging the 40 some stations totals.

westwall, normally your post are tight, but honestly your post # was not, and honestly I do question a few of your recent posts you have replied to of mine.

The extremist view is one as you began your response to me, if you have agreed and thanked all kinds of my posts, from a intellectual point of view you know I am prepared to provide links, books, and many sources to support my OP's. I do not merely have a title and that is it. When have I not followed up, been kind and civil to those who reply with facts and logical opinions.

Westwall, what have you offered, instead of stating Democrats, you use the term "progs"? It is Democrats that control the politics of water in California. Did you take a offence hence you can not state who we are speaking of?

Westwall, we have just finished the 5th month of this rainy season, yet your reply that we are in a drought for the entire state? You even posted a rainfall total for one tiny place, many stations in California are over a 100% wy to date.

Smiths River alone can be counted on for over 80 inches of water.

Yes there are many micro climates, I picked the data from noaa, to counter the extreme one sided view so many other threads portray.

At least my threads include the politics, the money, the power, and greed with lots of facts. You call this view way off base, one dimensional, extremist?

No westwall, the only extreme view was yours, nobody has suffered a drought, we have had democrat restrictions on water delivered to farmers for more years than we have had drought. Drought is not a crisis, Democrats are.

This is the best source for accurate water levels.

California Data Exchange Center


You claim all these rivers are above normal levels but the reality is far different. Here is the Feather River... as you can see PART of it is above normal. The rest on the other hand is at, or below.

FEATHER RIVER
OROVILLE ORO 3,537,577 760.12 1,773,853 2,530 50% 2,562,226 69 750 2,067 1,584,739
ANTELOPE ANT 22,566 5,002.27 22,815 0 101% 18,627 122 ---- ---- 20,088
FRENCHMAN FRD 55,477 5,558.59 20,249 17 37% 38,328 53 ---- ---- 27,986
LAKE DAVIS DAV 83,000 5,764.60 48,101 0 58%


I have already agreed with you that the democrat controlled State government has exacerbated the drought issue. What I dislike about your post in this case is you take the typical short term view of the AGW proponents who look at one warm day and say "look! Evidence of global warming!" You are ignoring some very real facts about the water situation in Cali. December was very, very good for Norcal, it added a ton of water to the system. However the south is still hurting. And badly.

Yes, Cali has a lot of water. Yes, the policies adopted by the state government are causing massive problems. There is no doubt of that. There is also no doubt that if the drought conditions continue, the problem will get worse. I am far from an alarmist. Idiots around here are bleating about how low the lakes are.... I remind them that 1992 was the lowest level for Tahoe with a level two feet below what we have now. But the issue is not one that should be treated in a cavalier manner. You state that most of Casli is desert. That is not correct. Most of southern Cali is indeed desert, but not all. Those areas provide essential runoff that is used in the south along with the three aqueducts that bring water in from north and east to LA.

There are good and bad Dems. Just like there are good and bad Repubs. The Dems who are the worst are those that identify themselves as progressives. We are being invaded by them right now and it takes tremendous resources to keep the bastards in check. Just refrain from painting all Dems with one brush. Like I said, generalizations such as those weaken your arguments.

Generalizations weaken arguments? Like the dozens you presented in this thread?

California IS suffering from a drought. The progs aren't responsible for that. The snow pack IS 25% of "average". There is no doubt of that. The progs, through misuse of legislation have caused the problem to be worse than it is.
You can't blame the drought on them. You can blame the idiotic actions they are taking for making it worse howe

Westwall, your statement now is much different than what you began with, but you continually para-phrase my facts, casting them as false and misleading when they are fact. Is it "progs" or "democrats" that run California? Democrats is the factual reality. Hardly generalizing or misleading when I state that as fact, but you seem to wish to distract from the facts.

This is the best source for accurate water levels.
California Data Exchange Center
You claim all these rivers are above normal levels but the reality is far different. Here is the Feather River... as you can see PART of it is above normal. The rest on the other hand is at, or below

I did not make a claim, I presented facts from noaa, from stations that monitor the amount of rain that fell this year. Westwall are you going to disparage the data from NOAA?! Most likely the California Data Exchange Center you used works hand and hand with the stations NOAA uses.

The best source, why not just state your post is infallible?

http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/monthly_precip.php

You posted a source that had one data point along the river. I gave you a link that has four. Yes, I disparage the "data" from NOAA GISS all the time.

 

[Syriusly]

I flew back into California yesterday- crossing the Sierra- and I had no idea how bad the snowpack is.

We are in the middle of March- which means we are very close to the end of our rainy season- such as it is this year- and there was so little snow.

The reservoir's west of Yosemite- which would normally be capped off about this time of year show wide rings of yellow from the exposed earth that would normally be covered with water. Other reservoirs I have seen recently are in similar straits.

Sure- you can claim accurately that California has 'alot of water'- but that is meaningless- California has received less water in the last 3 years than normal, and that shortfall is accumulating.

So yes- we should be looking at all of our water usages- and making rational decisions on how to reduce water usages to sustainable levels in line with the amount of rainfall and snow we are getting.

 

[jc456]

I flew back into California yesterday- crossing the Sierra- and I had no idea how bad the snowpack is.

We are in the middle of March- which means we are very close to the end of our rainy season- such as it is this year- and there was so little snow.

The reservoir's west of Yosemite- which would normally be capped off about this time of year show wide rings of yellow from the exposed earth that would normally be covered with water. Other reservoirs I have seen recently are in similar straits.

Sure- you can claim accurately that California has 'alot of water'- but that is meaningless- California has received less water in the last 3 years than normal, and that shortfall is accumulating.

So yes- we should be looking at all of our water usages- and making rational decisions on how to reduce water usages to sustainable levels in line with the amount of rainfall and snow we are getting.

they should learn to catch the runoff and stop letting it go to the sea.

 

[Crick]

WTF do you think they've been drinking for the last 200 years?

 

[Syriusly]

I flew back into California yesterday- crossing the Sierra- and I had no idea how bad the snowpack is.

We are in the middle of March- which means we are very close to the end of our rainy season- such as it is this year- and there was so little snow.

The reservoir's west of Yosemite- which would normally be capped off about this time of year show wide rings of yellow from the exposed earth that would normally be covered with water. Other reservoirs I have seen recently are in similar straits.

Sure- you can claim accurately that California has 'alot of water'- but that is meaningless- California has received less water in the last 3 years than normal, and that shortfall is accumulating.

So yes- we should be looking at all of our water usages- and making rational decisions on how to reduce water usages to sustainable levels in line with the amount of rainfall and snow we are getting.

they should learn to catch the runoff and stop letting it go to the sea.

California has hundreds if not thousands of reservoirs that to just that.

Of course if you completely stop all water going to the ocean, then you:

a) eliminate the Sacramento River as a transportation source- no more grain ships loading up in Stockton.
b) destroy the California fishing industry.

And of course endanger all sorts of wildlife.

 

[jc456]

I flew back into California yesterday- crossing the Sierra- and I had no idea how bad the snowpack is.

We are in the middle of March- which means we are very close to the end of our rainy season- such as it is this year- and there was so little snow.

The reservoir's west of Yosemite- which would normally be capped off about this time of year show wide rings of yellow from the exposed earth that would normally be covered with water. Other reservoirs I have seen recently are in similar straits.

Sure- you can claim accurately that California has 'alot of water'- but that is meaningless- California has received less water in the last 3 years than normal, and that shortfall is accumulating.

So yes- we should be looking at all of our water usages- and making rational decisions on how to reduce water usages to sustainable levels in line with the amount of rainfall and snow we are getting.

they should learn to catch the runoff and stop letting it go to the sea.

California has hundreds if not thousands of reservoirs that to just that.

Of course if you completely stop all water going to the ocean, then you:

a) eliminate the Sacramento River as a transportation source- no more grain ships loading up in Stockton.
b) destroy the California fishing industry.

And of course endanger all sorts of wildlife.

i said runoff not river. I recognize that reading is a skill.

 

[Syriusly]

I flew back into California yesterday- crossing the Sierra- and I had no idea how bad the snowpack is.

We are in the middle of March- which means we are very close to the end of our rainy season- such as it is this year- and there was so little snow.

The reservoir's west of Yosemite- which would normally be capped off about this time of year show wide rings of yellow from the exposed earth that would normally be covered with water. Other reservoirs I have seen recently are in similar straits.

Sure- you can claim accurately that California has 'alot of water'- but that is meaningless- California has received less water in the last 3 years than normal, and that shortfall is accumulating.

So yes- we should be looking at all of our water usages- and making rational decisions on how to reduce water usages to sustainable levels in line with the amount of rainfall and snow we are getting.

they should learn to catch the runoff and stop letting it go to the sea.

California has hundreds if not thousands of reservoirs that to just that.

Of course if you completely stop all water going to the ocean, then you:

a) eliminate the Sacramento River as a transportation source- no more grain ships loading up in Stockton.
b) destroy the California fishing industry.

And of course endanger all sorts of wildlife.

i said runoff not river. I recognize that reading is a skill.

You capture all of the runoff- there are no more rivers.

 

[jc456]

I flew back into California yesterday- crossing the Sierra- and I had no idea how bad the snowpack is.

We are in the middle of March- which means we are very close to the end of our rainy season- such as it is this year- and there was so little snow.

The reservoir's west of Yosemite- which would normally be capped off about this time of year show wide rings of yellow from the exposed earth that would normally be covered with water. Other reservoirs I have seen recently are in similar straits.

Sure- you can claim accurately that California has 'alot of water'- but that is meaningless- California has received less water in the last 3 years than normal, and that shortfall is accumulating.

So yes- we should be looking at all of our water usages- and making rational decisions on how to reduce water usages to sustainable levels in line with the amount of rainfall and snow we are getting.

they should learn to catch the runoff and stop letting it go to the sea.

California has hundreds if not thousands of reservoirs that to just that.

Of course if you completely stop all water going to the ocean, then you:

a) eliminate the Sacramento River as a transportation source- no more grain ships loading up in Stockton.
b) destroy the California fishing industry.

And of course endanger all sorts of wildlife.

i said runoff not river. I recognize that reading is a skill.

You capture all of the runoff- there are no more rivers.

holy crap, another left wacko! I see this thread with you in it is pointless.

 

[Crick]

I see you're afraid or unable to debate.