California suffering through SEVERE climate change

[jc456]

So reservoirs to trap water that doesn't exist would solve the problem?

You do understand reservoirs don't create water, right?

Conservative logic is fascinating. Apparently, liberals are to blame for being unwilling to magically create water with reservoirs.

You poor blithering booby. 3-4 year droughts are historically common in CA. El Nino years with a lot of rain fall are also common. The point of having WATER STORAGE is to have supplies for the drought years.

He/she can't figure such things like that out!

 

[boedicca]

This describes some of the Eco-Nazi campaign to send water to the ocean and create man-made shortages.

...
Working in cooperation with sympathetic judges and friendly federal and state officials, environmental groups have gone to extreme lengths to deprive the San Joaquin Valley, the heart of much of the U.S. agricultural production, of much-needed water. Consider the following actions they took:

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act: Backed by the NRDC, Sierra Club and other extreme environmental groups, large Democratic majorities in Congress passed the CVPIA in 1992 after attaching it to a must-pass public lands bill. The act stipulated that 800,000 acre-feet of water — or 260 billion gallons — on the Valley's west side had to be diverted annually to environmental causes, with an additional 400,000 acre-feet later being diverted annually to wildlife refuges.

Smelt and salmon biological opinions: Lawsuits filed by the NRDC and similar organizations forced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue, respectively, biological opinions on smelt (in 2008) and on salmon (in 2009). These opinions virtually ended operation of the Jones and Banks pumping plants — the two major pumping stations that move San Joaquin River Delta water — and resulted in massive diversions of water for environmental purposes.

The San Joaquin River Settlement: After nearly two decades of litigation related to a lawsuit filed in 1988 by the National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and other environmental groups, San Joaquin Valley agriculture organizations agreed to a settlement in 2006, later approved by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama. The settlement created the San Joaquin River Restoration Program. The program, which aims to create salmon runs along the San Joaquin River, required major new water diversions from Valley communities. Despite warnings from me and other California Republicans, agriculture groups naively approved the settlement based on false promises by the settlement's supporters that Valley water supplies would eventually be restored at some future, unspecified date.

Groundwater regulation: In September 2014, California Gov. Jerry Brown approved regulations requiring that water basins implement plans to achieve "groundwater sustainability" — essentially limiting how much water locals can use from underground storage supplies. But these pumping restrictions, slated to take effect over the next decade, will reduce access to what has become the final water source for many Valley communities, which have increasingly turned to groundwater pumping as their surface water supplies were drastically cut.

A Litany Of Hypocrisy

As radical groups have pursued this campaign to dry up the San Joaquin Valley, it's worth noting some of their stunning contradictions, hypocrisies, fallacies and failures:

"There's not enough water in California": Environmentalists often claim that the California water crisis stems from the state not having enough water to satisfy its rapidly growing population, especially during a drought.

However, the state in fact has abundant water flowing into the Delta, which is the heart of California's irrigation structure. Water that originates in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada Mountains runs off into the Delta, which has two pumping stations that help distribute the water throughout the state.

But on average, due to environmental regulations as well as a lack of water storage capacity (attributable, in large part, to activist groups' opposition to new storage projects), 70% of the water that enters the Delta is simply flushed into the ocean. California's water infrastructure was designed to withstand five years of drought, so the current crisis, which began about three years ago, should not be a crisis at all. During those three years, the state has flushed more than 2 million acre-feet of water — or 652 billion gallons — into the ocean due to the aforementioned biological opinions, which have prevented the irrigation infrastructure from operating at full capacity.

"Farmers use 80% of California's water": Having deliberately reduced the California water supply through decades of litigation, the radicals now need a scapegoat for the resulting crisis. So they blame farmers ("big agriculture," as they call them) for using 80% of the state's water.

This statistic, widely parroted by the media and some politicians, is a gross distortion. Of the water that is captured for use, farmers get 40%, cities get 10% and a full 50% goes to environmental purposes — that is, it gets flushed into the ocean. By arbitrarily excluding the huge environmental water diversion from their calculations — as if it is somehow irrelevant to the water crisis — environmentalists deceptively double the farmers' usage from 40% to 80%....

Man-Made Drought A Guide To California s Water Wars - Investors.com

 

[mamooth]

The magical conservative dam project is totally economically unfeasible, of course. But these are conservatives, and they're spending someone else's money, so naturally wasting money is no object.

There is already much more reservoir capacity than an average year can supply, or even a wet year. It takes a very wet year to exceed capacity. You're proposing a monumentally expensive system for very small returns. And if the year isn't wet, the extra surface area loses more water by evaporation and absorption.

There are many people who study this carefully, you know. And they think about the costs, which will be totally foreign to conservatives. Maybe you should all fill them in on your "We just hasta build dams everywhere!" brilliant insights.

 

[Dot Com]

So reservoirs to trap water that doesn't exist would solve the problem?

You do understand reservoirs don't create water, right?

Conservative logic is fascinating. Apparently, liberals are to blame for being unwilling to magically create water with reservoirs.

Seriously!!! Anti-science deniers defy logic to prop-up their extraction-based ideolgy

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[mamooth]

Couple of huge fallacies in Boed's other post.

She neglects to mention that most of the wasted water flows from the northern rivers and streams, which can't be economically dammed. And then rages at the liberals for not wasting hundreds of billions on the impossible.

She also curses liberals for not letting rivers dry up, which would be an ecological catastrophe. It's not about smelt, it's about an entire ecosystem.

The biggest laugher was "70% of the water that enters the delta is flushed into the ocean", as if that was something unusual. Gee, maybe itt's because it's a freakin' delta which by definition is right next to the ocean? Where would you expect the water to go, back upriver?

 

[Crick]

This describes some of the Eco-Nazi campaign to send water to the ocean and create man-made shortages.

...
Working in cooperation with sympathetic judges and friendly federal and state officials, environmental groups have gone to extreme lengths to deprive the San Joaquin Valley, the heart of much of the U.S. agricultural production, of much-needed water. Consider the following actions they took:

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act: Backed by the NRDC, Sierra Club and other extreme environmental groups, large Democratic majorities in Congress passed the CVPIA in 1992 after attaching it to a must-pass public lands bill. The act stipulated that 800,000 acre-feet of water — or 260 billion gallons — on the Valley's west side had to be diverted annually to environmental causes, with an additional 400,000 acre-feet later being diverted annually to wildlife refuges.

Smelt and salmon biological opinions: Lawsuits filed by the NRDC and similar organizations forced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue, respectively, biological opinions on smelt (in 2008) and on salmon (in 2009). These opinions virtually ended operation of the Jones and Banks pumping plants — the two major pumping stations that move San Joaquin River Delta water — and resulted in massive diversions of water for environmental purposes.

The San Joaquin River Settlement: After nearly two decades of litigation related to a lawsuit filed in 1988 by the National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and other environmental groups, San Joaquin Valley agriculture organizations agreed to a settlement in 2006, later approved by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama. The settlement created the San Joaquin River Restoration Program. The program, which aims to create salmon runs along the San Joaquin River, required major new water diversions from Valley communities. Despite warnings from me and other California Republicans, agriculture groups naively approved the settlement based on false promises by the settlement's supporters that Valley water supplies would eventually be restored at some future, unspecified date.

Groundwater regulation: In September 2014, California Gov. Jerry Brown approved regulations requiring that water basins implement plans to achieve "groundwater sustainability" — essentially limiting how much water locals can use from underground storage supplies. But these pumping restrictions, slated to take effect over the next decade, will reduce access to what has become the final water source for many Valley communities, which have increasingly turned to groundwater pumping as their surface water supplies were drastically cut.

A Litany Of Hypocrisy

As radical groups have pursued this campaign to dry up the San Joaquin Valley, it's worth noting some of their stunning contradictions, hypocrisies, fallacies and failures:

"There's not enough water in California": Environmentalists often claim that the California water crisis stems from the state not having enough water to satisfy its rapidly growing population, especially during a drought.

However, the state in fact has abundant water flowing into the Delta, which is the heart of California's irrigation structure. Water that originates in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada Mountains runs off into the Delta, which has two pumping stations that help distribute the water throughout the state.

But on average, due to environmental regulations as well as a lack of water storage capacity (attributable, in large part, to activist groups' opposition to new storage projects), 70% of the water that enters the Delta is simply flushed into the ocean. California's water infrastructure was designed to withstand five years of drought, so the current crisis, which began about three years ago, should not be a crisis at all. During those three years, the state has flushed more than 2 million acre-feet of water — or 652 billion gallons — into the ocean due to the aforementioned biological opinions, which have prevented the irrigation infrastructure from operating at full capacity.

"Farmers use 80% of California's water": Having deliberately reduced the California water supply through decades of litigation, the radicals now need a scapegoat for the resulting crisis. So they blame farmers ("big agriculture," as they call them) for using 80% of the state's water.

This statistic, widely parroted by the media and some politicians, is a gross distortion. Of the water that is captured for use, farmers get 40%, cities get 10% and a full 50% goes to environmental purposes — that is, it gets flushed into the ocean. By arbitrarily excluding the huge environmental water diversion from their calculations — as if it is somehow irrelevant to the water crisis — environmentalists deceptively double the farmers' usage from 40% to 80%....

Man-Made Drought A Guide To California s Water Wars - Investors.com

I think you could have just given us a link - per the new rules, we're supposed to minimize significant cut-and-pastes.

Now then, in an attempt to set our boundary values: would you be willing to see the salmon and the smelt abandoned to extinction to provide the citizens of California with a normal water supply? Your article now states the half the states fresh water is allowed to flow into the sea (just in case someone wasn't thinking too hard about this - the sea is where ALL fresh water flows. Some of it gets dirtied up by people first, but that's just a slight delay on its way to the sea.). So, how much of that would you be willing to see diverted to human use: agriculture and domestic?

 

[Dot Com]

So reservoirs to trap water that doesn't exist would solve the problem?

You do understand reservoirs don't create water, right?

Conservative logic is fascinating. Apparently, liberals are to blame for being unwilling to magically create water with reservoirs.

^ Death Valley, CA

What would we do w/o your keen insight? I already posted that MURICA thought, and contemporary conservatives still believe, that this planet is here exclusively for them to treat as a playground, future generations be damned

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[boedicca]

This describes some of the Eco-Nazi campaign to send water to the ocean and create man-made shortages.

...
Working in cooperation with sympathetic judges and friendly federal and state officials, environmental groups have gone to extreme lengths to deprive the San Joaquin Valley, the heart of much of the U.S. agricultural production, of much-needed water. Consider the following actions they took:

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act: Backed by the NRDC, Sierra Club and other extreme environmental groups, large Democratic majorities in Congress passed the CVPIA in 1992 after attaching it to a must-pass public lands bill. The act stipulated that 800,000 acre-feet of water — or 260 billion gallons — on the Valley's west side had to be diverted annually to environmental causes, with an additional 400,000 acre-feet later being diverted annually to wildlife refuges.

Smelt and salmon biological opinions: Lawsuits filed by the NRDC and similar organizations forced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue, respectively, biological opinions on smelt (in 2008) and on salmon (in 2009). These opinions virtually ended operation of the Jones and Banks pumping plants — the two major pumping stations that move San Joaquin River Delta water — and resulted in massive diversions of water for environmental purposes.

The San Joaquin River Settlement: After nearly two decades of litigation related to a lawsuit filed in 1988 by the National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and other environmental groups, San Joaquin Valley agriculture organizations agreed to a settlement in 2006, later approved by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama. The settlement created the San Joaquin River Restoration Program. The program, which aims to create salmon runs along the San Joaquin River, required major new water diversions from Valley communities. Despite warnings from me and other California Republicans, agriculture groups naively approved the settlement based on false promises by the settlement's supporters that Valley water supplies would eventually be restored at some future, unspecified date.

Groundwater regulation: In September 2014, California Gov. Jerry Brown approved regulations requiring that water basins implement plans to achieve "groundwater sustainability" — essentially limiting how much water locals can use from underground storage supplies. But these pumping restrictions, slated to take effect over the next decade, will reduce access to what has become the final water source for many Valley communities, which have increasingly turned to groundwater pumping as their surface water supplies were drastically cut.

A Litany Of Hypocrisy

As radical groups have pursued this campaign to dry up the San Joaquin Valley, it's worth noting some of their stunning contradictions, hypocrisies, fallacies and failures:

"There's not enough water in California": Environmentalists often claim that the California water crisis stems from the state not having enough water to satisfy its rapidly growing population, especially during a drought.

However, the state in fact has abundant water flowing into the Delta, which is the heart of California's irrigation structure. Water that originates in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada Mountains runs off into the Delta, which has two pumping stations that help distribute the water throughout the state.

But on average, due to environmental regulations as well as a lack of water storage capacity (attributable, in large part, to activist groups' opposition to new storage projects), 70% of the water that enters the Delta is simply flushed into the ocean. California's water infrastructure was designed to withstand five years of drought, so the current crisis, which began about three years ago, should not be a crisis at all. During those three years, the state has flushed more than 2 million acre-feet of water — or 652 billion gallons — into the ocean due to the aforementioned biological opinions, which have prevented the irrigation infrastructure from operating at full capacity.

"Farmers use 80% of California's water": Having deliberately reduced the California water supply through decades of litigation, the radicals now need a scapegoat for the resulting crisis. So they blame farmers ("big agriculture," as they call them) for using 80% of the state's water.

This statistic, widely parroted by the media and some politicians, is a gross distortion. Of the water that is captured for use, farmers get 40%, cities get 10% and a full 50% goes to environmental purposes — that is, it gets flushed into the ocean. By arbitrarily excluding the huge environmental water diversion from their calculations — as if it is somehow irrelevant to the water crisis — environmentalists deceptively double the farmers' usage from 40% to 80%....

Man-Made Drought A Guide To California s Water Wars - Investors.com

I think you could have just given us a link - per the new rules, we're supposed to minimize significant cut-and-pastes.

Now then, in an attempt to set our boundary values: would you be willing to see the salmon and the smelt abandoned to extinction to provide the citizens of California with a normal water supply? Your article now states the half the states fresh water is allowed to flow into the sea (just in case someone wasn't thinking too hard about this - the sea is where ALL fresh water flows. Some of it gets dirtied up by people first, but that's just a slight delay on its way to the sea.). So, how much of that would you be willing to see diverted to human use: agriculture and domestic?

As you mention the link, the salmon and smelt nonsense are addressed there as well.

The state spends $4M per salmon, with the efforts failing. The Delta Smelt is declining despite diverting an enormous ration of Sierra run off to the Delta (which, btw, is a MAN MADE network). Without the CA Water Project, the salmon runs and Smelt Home the loons are using as their Poster Causes wouldn't even exist.

 

[Dot Com]

This describes some of the Eco-Nazi campaign to send water to the ocean and create man-made shortages.

...
Working in cooperation with sympathetic judges and friendly federal and state officials, environmental groups have gone to extreme lengths to deprive the San Joaquin Valley, the heart of much of the U.S. agricultural production, of much-needed water. Consider the following actions they took:

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act: Backed by the NRDC, Sierra Club and other extreme environmental groups, large Democratic majorities in Congress passed the CVPIA in 1992 after attaching it to a must-pass public lands bill. The act stipulated that 800,000 acre-feet of water — or 260 billion gallons — on the Valley's west side had to be diverted annually to environmental causes, with an additional 400,000 acre-feet later being diverted annually to wildlife refuges.

Smelt and salmon biological opinions: Lawsuits filed by the NRDC and similar organizations forced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue, respectively, biological opinions on smelt (in 2008) and on salmon (in 2009). These opinions virtually ended operation of the Jones and Banks pumping plants — the two major pumping stations that move San Joaquin River Delta water — and resulted in massive diversions of water for environmental purposes.

The San Joaquin River Settlement: After nearly two decades of litigation related to a lawsuit filed in 1988 by the National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and other environmental groups, San Joaquin Valley agriculture organizations agreed to a settlement in 2006, later approved by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama. The settlement created the San Joaquin River Restoration Program. The program, which aims to create salmon runs along the San Joaquin River, required major new water diversions from Valley communities. Despite warnings from me and other California Republicans, agriculture groups naively approved the settlement based on false promises by the settlement's supporters that Valley water supplies would eventually be restored at some future, unspecified date.

Groundwater regulation: In September 2014, California Gov. Jerry Brown approved regulations requiring that water basins implement plans to achieve "groundwater sustainability" — essentially limiting how much water locals can use from underground storage supplies. But these pumping restrictions, slated to take effect over the next decade, will reduce access to what has become the final water source for many Valley communities, which have increasingly turned to groundwater pumping as their surface water supplies were drastically cut.

A Litany Of Hypocrisy

As radical groups have pursued this campaign to dry up the San Joaquin Valley, it's worth noting some of their stunning contradictions, hypocrisies, fallacies and failures:

"There's not enough water in California": Environmentalists often claim that the California water crisis stems from the state not having enough water to satisfy its rapidly growing population, especially during a drought.

However, the state in fact has abundant water flowing into the Delta, which is the heart of California's irrigation structure. Water that originates in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada Mountains runs off into the Delta, which has two pumping stations that help distribute the water throughout the state.

But on average, due to environmental regulations as well as a lack of water storage capacity (attributable, in large part, to activist groups' opposition to new storage projects), 70% of the water that enters the Delta is simply flushed into the ocean. California's water infrastructure was designed to withstand five years of drought, so the current crisis, which began about three years ago, should not be a crisis at all. During those three years, the state has flushed more than 2 million acre-feet of water — or 652 billion gallons — into the ocean due to the aforementioned biological opinions, which have prevented the irrigation infrastructure from operating at full capacity.

"Farmers use 80% of California's water": Having deliberately reduced the California water supply through decades of litigation, the radicals now need a scapegoat for the resulting crisis. So they blame farmers ("big agriculture," as they call them) for using 80% of the state's water.

This statistic, widely parroted by the media and some politicians, is a gross distortion. Of the water that is captured for use, farmers get 40%, cities get 10% and a full 50% goes to environmental purposes — that is, it gets flushed into the ocean. By arbitrarily excluding the huge environmental water diversion from their calculations — as if it is somehow irrelevant to the water crisis — environmentalists deceptively double the farmers' usage from 40% to 80%....

Man-Made Drought A Guide To California s Water Wars - Investors.com

I think you could have just given us a link - per the new rules, we're supposed to minimize significant cut-and-pastes.

Now then, in an attempt to set our boundary values: would you be willing to see the salmon and the smelt abandoned to extinction to provide the citizens of California with a normal water supply? Your article now states the half the states fresh water is allowed to flow into the sea (just in case someone wasn't thinking too hard about this - the sea is where ALL fresh water flows. Some of it gets dirtied up by people first, but that's just a slight delay on its way to the sea.). So, how much of that would you be willing to see diverted to human use: agriculture and domestic?

True. First thought, when I saw her wall of copynpaste was to report. AFTER doing a facepalm of course. THAT ONE has been here long enough to know better.

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[boedicca]

This describes some of the Eco-Nazi campaign to send water to the ocean and create man-made shortages.

...
Working in cooperation with sympathetic judges and friendly federal and state officials, environmental groups have gone to extreme lengths to deprive the San Joaquin Valley, the heart of much of the U.S. agricultural production, of much-needed water. Consider the following actions they took:

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act: Backed by the NRDC, Sierra Club and other extreme environmental groups, large Democratic majorities in Congress passed the CVPIA in 1992 after attaching it to a must-pass public lands bill. The act stipulated that 800,000 acre-feet of water — or 260 billion gallons — on the Valley's west side had to be diverted annually to environmental causes, with an additional 400,000 acre-feet later being diverted annually to wildlife refuges.

Smelt and salmon biological opinions: Lawsuits filed by the NRDC and similar organizations forced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue, respectively, biological opinions on smelt (in 2008) and on salmon (in 2009). These opinions virtually ended operation of the Jones and Banks pumping plants — the two major pumping stations that move San Joaquin River Delta water — and resulted in massive diversions of water for environmental purposes.

The San Joaquin River Settlement: After nearly two decades of litigation related to a lawsuit filed in 1988 by the National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and other environmental groups, San Joaquin Valley agriculture organizations agreed to a settlement in 2006, later approved by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama. The settlement created the San Joaquin River Restoration Program. The program, which aims to create salmon runs along the San Joaquin River, required major new water diversions from Valley communities. Despite warnings from me and other California Republicans, agriculture groups naively approved the settlement based on false promises by the settlement's supporters that Valley water supplies would eventually be restored at some future, unspecified date.

Groundwater regulation: In September 2014, California Gov. Jerry Brown approved regulations requiring that water basins implement plans to achieve "groundwater sustainability" — essentially limiting how much water locals can use from underground storage supplies. But these pumping restrictions, slated to take effect over the next decade, will reduce access to what has become the final water source for many Valley communities, which have increasingly turned to groundwater pumping as their surface water supplies were drastically cut.

A Litany Of Hypocrisy

As radical groups have pursued this campaign to dry up the San Joaquin Valley, it's worth noting some of their stunning contradictions, hypocrisies, fallacies and failures:

"There's not enough water in California": Environmentalists often claim that the California water crisis stems from the state not having enough water to satisfy its rapidly growing population, especially during a drought.

However, the state in fact has abundant water flowing into the Delta, which is the heart of California's irrigation structure. Water that originates in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada Mountains runs off into the Delta, which has two pumping stations that help distribute the water throughout the state.

But on average, due to environmental regulations as well as a lack of water storage capacity (attributable, in large part, to activist groups' opposition to new storage projects), 70% of the water that enters the Delta is simply flushed into the ocean. California's water infrastructure was designed to withstand five years of drought, so the current crisis, which began about three years ago, should not be a crisis at all. During those three years, the state has flushed more than 2 million acre-feet of water — or 652 billion gallons — into the ocean due to the aforementioned biological opinions, which have prevented the irrigation infrastructure from operating at full capacity.

"Farmers use 80% of California's water": Having deliberately reduced the California water supply through decades of litigation, the radicals now need a scapegoat for the resulting crisis. So they blame farmers ("big agriculture," as they call them) for using 80% of the state's water.

This statistic, widely parroted by the media and some politicians, is a gross distortion. Of the water that is captured for use, farmers get 40%, cities get 10% and a full 50% goes to environmental purposes — that is, it gets flushed into the ocean. By arbitrarily excluding the huge environmental water diversion from their calculations — as if it is somehow irrelevant to the water crisis — environmentalists deceptively double the farmers' usage from 40% to 80%....

Man-Made Drought A Guide To California s Water Wars - Investors.com

I think you could have just given us a link - per the new rules, we're supposed to minimize significant cut-and-pastes.

Now then, in an attempt to set our boundary values: would you be willing to see the salmon and the smelt abandoned to extinction to provide the citizens of California with a normal water supply? Your article now states the half the states fresh water is allowed to flow into the sea (just in case someone wasn't thinking too hard about this - the sea is where ALL fresh water flows. Some of it gets dirtied up by people first, but that's just a slight delay on its way to the sea.). So, how much of that would you be willing to see diverted to human use: agriculture and domestic?

True. First thought, when I saw her wall of copynpaste was to report. AFTER doing a facepalm of course. THAT ONE has been here long enough to know better.

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

It's not surprising that DOTTIE cannot handle reading anything longer that 140 characters and made up of only one syllable words.

 

[Dot Com]

This describes some of the Eco-Nazi campaign to send water to the ocean and create man-made shortages.

...
Working in cooperation with sympathetic judges and friendly federal and state officials, environmental groups have gone to extreme lengths to deprive the San Joaquin Valley, the heart of much of the U.S. agricultural production, of much-needed water. Consider the following actions they took:

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act: Backed by the NRDC, Sierra Club and other extreme environmental groups, large Democratic majorities in Congress passed the CVPIA in 1992 after attaching it to a must-pass public lands bill. The act stipulated that 800,000 acre-feet of water — or 260 billion gallons — on the Valley's west side had to be diverted annually to environmental causes, with an additional 400,000 acre-feet later being diverted annually to wildlife refuges.

Smelt and salmon biological opinions: Lawsuits filed by the NRDC and similar organizations forced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue, respectively, biological opinions on smelt (in 2008) and on salmon (in 2009). These opinions virtually ended operation of the Jones and Banks pumping plants — the two major pumping stations that move San Joaquin River Delta water — and resulted in massive diversions of water for environmental purposes.

The San Joaquin River Settlement: After nearly two decades of litigation related to a lawsuit filed in 1988 by the National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and other environmental groups, San Joaquin Valley agriculture organizations agreed to a settlement in 2006, later approved by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama. The settlement created the San Joaquin River Restoration Program. The program, which aims to create salmon runs along the San Joaquin River, required major new water diversions from Valley communities. Despite warnings from me and other California Republicans, agriculture groups naively approved the settlement based on false promises by the settlement's supporters that Valley water supplies would eventually be restored at some future, unspecified date.

Groundwater regulation: In September 2014, California Gov. Jerry Brown approved regulations requiring that water basins implement plans to achieve "groundwater sustainability" — essentially limiting how much water locals can use from underground storage supplies. But these pumping restrictions, slated to take effect over the next decade, will reduce access to what has become the final water source for many Valley communities, which have increasingly turned to groundwater pumping as their surface water supplies were drastically cut.

A Litany Of Hypocrisy

As radical groups have pursued this campaign to dry up the San Joaquin Valley, it's worth noting some of their stunning contradictions, hypocrisies, fallacies and failures:

"There's not enough water in California": Environmentalists often claim that the California water crisis stems from the state not having enough water to satisfy its rapidly growing population, especially during a drought.

However, the state in fact has abundant water flowing into the Delta, which is the heart of California's irrigation structure. Water that originates in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada Mountains runs off into the Delta, which has two pumping stations that help distribute the water throughout the state.

But on average, due to environmental regulations as well as a lack of water storage capacity (attributable, in large part, to activist groups' opposition to new storage projects), 70% of the water that enters the Delta is simply flushed into the ocean. California's water infrastructure was designed to withstand five years of drought, so the current crisis, which began about three years ago, should not be a crisis at all. During those three years, the state has flushed more than 2 million acre-feet of water — or 652 billion gallons — into the ocean due to the aforementioned biological opinions, which have prevented the irrigation infrastructure from operating at full capacity.

"Farmers use 80% of California's water": Having deliberately reduced the California water supply through decades of litigation, the radicals now need a scapegoat for the resulting crisis. So they blame farmers ("big agriculture," as they call them) for using 80% of the state's water.

This statistic, widely parroted by the media and some politicians, is a gross distortion. Of the water that is captured for use, farmers get 40%, cities get 10% and a full 50% goes to environmental purposes — that is, it gets flushed into the ocean. By arbitrarily excluding the huge environmental water diversion from their calculations — as if it is somehow irrelevant to the water crisis — environmentalists deceptively double the farmers' usage from 40% to 80%....

Man-Made Drought A Guide To California s Water Wars - Investors.com

I think you could have just given us a link - per the new rules, we're supposed to minimize significant cut-and-pastes.

Now then, in an attempt to set our boundary values: would you be willing to see the salmon and the smelt abandoned to extinction to provide the citizens of California with a normal water supply? Your article now states the half the states fresh water is allowed to flow into the sea (just in case someone wasn't thinking too hard about this - the sea is where ALL fresh water flows. Some of it gets dirtied up by people first, but that's just a slight delay on its way to the sea.). So, how much of that would you be willing to see diverted to human use: agriculture and domestic?

True. First thought, when I saw her wall of copynpaste was to report. AFTER doing a facepalm of course. THAT ONE has been here long enough to know better.

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

It's not surprising that DOTTIE cannot handle reading anything longer that 140 characters and made up of only one syllable words.

Its bad form to take, whole cloth, another's work and blanket my thread with it

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[jc456]

This describes some of the Eco-Nazi campaign to send water to the ocean and create man-made shortages.

...
Working in cooperation with sympathetic judges and friendly federal and state officials, environmental groups have gone to extreme lengths to deprive the San Joaquin Valley, the heart of much of the U.S. agricultural production, of much-needed water. Consider the following actions they took:

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act: Backed by the NRDC, Sierra Club and other extreme environmental groups, large Democratic majorities in Congress passed the CVPIA in 1992 after attaching it to a must-pass public lands bill. The act stipulated that 800,000 acre-feet of water — or 260 billion gallons — on the Valley's west side had to be diverted annually to environmental causes, with an additional 400,000 acre-feet later being diverted annually to wildlife refuges.

Smelt and salmon biological opinions: Lawsuits filed by the NRDC and similar organizations forced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue, respectively, biological opinions on smelt (in 2008) and on salmon (in 2009). These opinions virtually ended operation of the Jones and Banks pumping plants — the two major pumping stations that move San Joaquin River Delta water — and resulted in massive diversions of water for environmental purposes.

The San Joaquin River Settlement: After nearly two decades of litigation related to a lawsuit filed in 1988 by the National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and other environmental groups, San Joaquin Valley agriculture organizations agreed to a settlement in 2006, later approved by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama. The settlement created the San Joaquin River Restoration Program. The program, which aims to create salmon runs along the San Joaquin River, required major new water diversions from Valley communities. Despite warnings from me and other California Republicans, agriculture groups naively approved the settlement based on false promises by the settlement's supporters that Valley water supplies would eventually be restored at some future, unspecified date.

Groundwater regulation: In September 2014, California Gov. Jerry Brown approved regulations requiring that water basins implement plans to achieve "groundwater sustainability" — essentially limiting how much water locals can use from underground storage supplies. But these pumping restrictions, slated to take effect over the next decade, will reduce access to what has become the final water source for many Valley communities, which have increasingly turned to groundwater pumping as their surface water supplies were drastically cut.

A Litany Of Hypocrisy

As radical groups have pursued this campaign to dry up the San Joaquin Valley, it's worth noting some of their stunning contradictions, hypocrisies, fallacies and failures:

"There's not enough water in California": Environmentalists often claim that the California water crisis stems from the state not having enough water to satisfy its rapidly growing population, especially during a drought.

However, the state in fact has abundant water flowing into the Delta, which is the heart of California's irrigation structure. Water that originates in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada Mountains runs off into the Delta, which has two pumping stations that help distribute the water throughout the state.

But on average, due to environmental regulations as well as a lack of water storage capacity (attributable, in large part, to activist groups' opposition to new storage projects), 70% of the water that enters the Delta is simply flushed into the ocean. California's water infrastructure was designed to withstand five years of drought, so the current crisis, which began about three years ago, should not be a crisis at all. During those three years, the state has flushed more than 2 million acre-feet of water — or 652 billion gallons — into the ocean due to the aforementioned biological opinions, which have prevented the irrigation infrastructure from operating at full capacity.

"Farmers use 80% of California's water": Having deliberately reduced the California water supply through decades of litigation, the radicals now need a scapegoat for the resulting crisis. So they blame farmers ("big agriculture," as they call them) for using 80% of the state's water.

This statistic, widely parroted by the media and some politicians, is a gross distortion. Of the water that is captured for use, farmers get 40%, cities get 10% and a full 50% goes to environmental purposes — that is, it gets flushed into the ocean. By arbitrarily excluding the huge environmental water diversion from their calculations — as if it is somehow irrelevant to the water crisis — environmentalists deceptively double the farmers' usage from 40% to 80%....

Man-Made Drought A Guide To California s Water Wars - Investors.com

I think you could have just given us a link - per the new rules, we're supposed to minimize significant cut-and-pastes.

Now then, in an attempt to set our boundary values: would you be willing to see the salmon and the smelt abandoned to extinction to provide the citizens of California with a normal water supply? Your article now states the half the states fresh water is allowed to flow into the sea (just in case someone wasn't thinking too hard about this - the sea is where ALL fresh water flows. Some of it gets dirtied up by people first, but that's just a slight delay on its way to the sea.). So, how much of that would you be willing to see diverted to human use: agriculture and domestic?

True. First thought, when I saw her wall of copynpaste was to report. AFTER doing a facepalm of course. THAT ONE has been here long enough to know better.

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

It's not surprising that DOTTIE cannot handle reading anything longer that 140 characters and made up of only one syllable words.

Its bad form to take, whole cloth, another's work and blanket my thread with it

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

It was spot on for the OP. So , what's your problem?

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[boedicca]

This describes some of the Eco-Nazi campaign to send water to the ocean and create man-made shortages.

...
Working in cooperation with sympathetic judges and friendly federal and state officials, environmental groups have gone to extreme lengths to deprive the San Joaquin Valley, the heart of much of the U.S. agricultural production, of much-needed water. Consider the following actions they took:

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act: Backed by the NRDC, Sierra Club and other extreme environmental groups, large Democratic majorities in Congress passed the CVPIA in 1992 after attaching it to a must-pass public lands bill. The act stipulated that 800,000 acre-feet of water — or 260 billion gallons — on the Valley's west side had to be diverted annually to environmental causes, with an additional 400,000 acre-feet later being diverted annually to wildlife refuges.

Smelt and salmon biological opinions: Lawsuits filed by the NRDC and similar organizations forced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue, respectively, biological opinions on smelt (in 2008) and on salmon (in 2009). These opinions virtually ended operation of the Jones and Banks pumping plants — the two major pumping stations that move San Joaquin River Delta water — and resulted in massive diversions of water for environmental purposes.

The San Joaquin River Settlement: After nearly two decades of litigation related to a lawsuit filed in 1988 by the National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and other environmental groups, San Joaquin Valley agriculture organizations agreed to a settlement in 2006, later approved by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama. The settlement created the San Joaquin River Restoration Program. The program, which aims to create salmon runs along the San Joaquin River, required major new water diversions from Valley communities. Despite warnings from me and other California Republicans, agriculture groups naively approved the settlement based on false promises by the settlement's supporters that Valley water supplies would eventually be restored at some future, unspecified date.

Groundwater regulation: In September 2014, California Gov. Jerry Brown approved regulations requiring that water basins implement plans to achieve "groundwater sustainability" — essentially limiting how much water locals can use from underground storage supplies. But these pumping restrictions, slated to take effect over the next decade, will reduce access to what has become the final water source for many Valley communities, which have increasingly turned to groundwater pumping as their surface water supplies were drastically cut.

A Litany Of Hypocrisy

As radical groups have pursued this campaign to dry up the San Joaquin Valley, it's worth noting some of their stunning contradictions, hypocrisies, fallacies and failures:

"There's not enough water in California": Environmentalists often claim that the California water crisis stems from the state not having enough water to satisfy its rapidly growing population, especially during a drought.

However, the state in fact has abundant water flowing into the Delta, which is the heart of California's irrigation structure. Water that originates in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada Mountains runs off into the Delta, which has two pumping stations that help distribute the water throughout the state.

But on average, due to environmental regulations as well as a lack of water storage capacity (attributable, in large part, to activist groups' opposition to new storage projects), 70% of the water that enters the Delta is simply flushed into the ocean. California's water infrastructure was designed to withstand five years of drought, so the current crisis, which began about three years ago, should not be a crisis at all. During those three years, the state has flushed more than 2 million acre-feet of water — or 652 billion gallons — into the ocean due to the aforementioned biological opinions, which have prevented the irrigation infrastructure from operating at full capacity.

"Farmers use 80% of California's water": Having deliberately reduced the California water supply through decades of litigation, the radicals now need a scapegoat for the resulting crisis. So they blame farmers ("big agriculture," as they call them) for using 80% of the state's water.

This statistic, widely parroted by the media and some politicians, is a gross distortion. Of the water that is captured for use, farmers get 40%, cities get 10% and a full 50% goes to environmental purposes — that is, it gets flushed into the ocean. By arbitrarily excluding the huge environmental water diversion from their calculations — as if it is somehow irrelevant to the water crisis — environmentalists deceptively double the farmers' usage from 40% to 80%....

Man-Made Drought A Guide To California s Water Wars - Investors.com

I think you could have just given us a link - per the new rules, we're supposed to minimize significant cut-and-pastes.

Now then, in an attempt to set our boundary values: would you be willing to see the salmon and the smelt abandoned to extinction to provide the citizens of California with a normal water supply? Your article now states the half the states fresh water is allowed to flow into the sea (just in case someone wasn't thinking too hard about this - the sea is where ALL fresh water flows. Some of it gets dirtied up by people first, but that's just a slight delay on its way to the sea.). So, how much of that would you be willing to see diverted to human use: agriculture and domestic?

True. First thought, when I saw her wall of copynpaste was to report. AFTER doing a facepalm of course. THAT ONE has been here long enough to know better.

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

It's not surprising that DOTTIE cannot handle reading anything longer that 140 characters and made up of only one syllable words.

Its bad form to take, whole cloth, another's work and blanket my thread with it

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

It was spot on for the OP. So , what's your problem?

The fact that it is spot on is exactly her problem. She can't handle anything that harshes her Leftwing Loon Bubble Worldview.

 

[flacaltenn]

The magical conservative dam project is totally economically unfeasible, of course. But these are conservatives, and they're spending someone else's money, so naturally wasting money is no object.

There is already much more reservoir capacity than an average year can supply, or even a wet year. It takes a very wet year to exceed capacity. You're proposing a monumentally expensive system for very small returns. And if the year isn't wet, the extra surface area loses more water by evaporation and absorption.

There are many people who study this carefully, you know. And they think about the costs, which will be totally foreign to conservatives. Maybe you should all fill them in on your "We just hasta build dams everywhere!" brilliant insights.

Your bullshit trolling has no end does it? 80% of the rain in LA basin goes into the sea. Plenty of canyons with creeks that could store water, Boedicca gave you the lacky Cali attitude towards any water projects. 40 years of ignoring your in state utilities bbecause leftists dont know how things actually work, is like a real sketchy trip man.........

LA nimrods dont see the damage that they do to MONO lake waaaaay the hell up in Nevada when THEY suck it dry.. They THINK they are so green and earthy. They KILL environments hundreds of miles away and never care a whit......

 

[Dot Com]

The magical conservative dam project is totally economically unfeasible, of course. But these are conservatives, and they're spending someone else's money, so naturally wasting money is no object.

There is already much more reservoir capacity than an average year can supply, or even a wet year. It takes a very wet year to exceed capacity. You're proposing a monumentally expensive system for very small returns. And if the year isn't wet, the extra surface area loses more water by evaporation and absorption.

There are many people who study this carefully, you know. And they think about the costs, which will be totally foreign to conservatives. Maybe you should all fill them in on your "We just hasta build dams everywhere!" brilliant insights.

Your bullshit trolling has no end does it? 80% of the rain in LA basin goes into the sea. Plenty of canyons with creeks that could store water, Boedicca gave you the lacky Cali attitude towards any water projects. 40 years of ignoring your in state utilities bbecause leftists dont know how things actually work, is like a real sketchy trip man.........

LA nimrods dont see the damage that they do to MONO lake waaaaay the hell up in Nevada when THEY suck it dry.. They THINK they are so green and earthy. They KILL environments hundreds of miles away and never care a whit......

So when your side gets a dose of the truth you term it "trolling"? Funny that.

 

[eagle1462010]

The magical conservative dam project is totally economically unfeasible, of course. But these are conservatives, and they're spending someone else's money, so naturally wasting money is no object.

There is already much more reservoir capacity than an average year can supply, or even a wet year. It takes a very wet year to exceed capacity. You're proposing a monumentally expensive system for very small returns. And if the year isn't wet, the extra surface area loses more water by evaporation and absorption.

There are many people who study this carefully, you know. And they think about the costs, which will be totally foreign to conservatives. Maybe you should all fill them in on your "We just hasta build dams everywhere!" brilliant insights.

Your bullshit trolling has no end does it? 80% of the rain in LA basin goes into the sea. Plenty of canyons with creeks that could store water, Boedicca gave you the lacky Cali attitude towards any water projects. 40 years of ignoring your in state utilities bbecause leftists dont know how things actually work, is like a real sketchy trip man.........

LA nimrods dont see the damage that they do to MONO lake waaaaay the hell up in Nevada when THEY suck it dry.. They THINK they are so green and earthy. They KILL environments hundreds of miles away and never care a whit......

So when your side gets a dose of the truth you term it "trolling"? Funny that.

LOL

He's saying the truth................Your side screws things up...........refuses to plan for the future..............and then blames everything on someone else.............

Pretty pathetic which is by nature liberals.......................

Enjoy the trains................

 

[Crick]

Still haven't shaken off that ellipsismania I see.

Let's get honest here. California is not running out of water from a lack of dams or reservoirs and it's not running out of water because of liberals. It's running out of water from a fooking drought that the deniers have to deny because it looks vaguely like a consequence of global warming. Certainly, there'd be no problem if the population of California were one-tenth what it is. And certainly there'd be no problem for the farmers if they got all the water being wasted making herbal tea and watering urban lawns and certainly there'd be no problem for the urbanites if those damn farmers would just stop growing all that damnable food.

But none of that's going to happen and the drought doesn't look like it's likely to end for at least a decade and more likely three (or 30 decades) so there are only two solutions: move a LOT of people out of California and do something to end the drought.

 

[eagle1462010]

Still haven't shaken off that ellipsismania I see.

Let's get honest here. California is not running out of water from a lack of dams or reservoirs and it's not running out of water because of liberals. It's running out of water from a fooking drought that the deniers have to deny because it looks vaguely like a consequence of global warming. Certainly, there'd be no problem if the population of California were one-tenth what it is. And certainly there'd be no problem for the farmers if they got all the water being wasted making herbal tea and watering urban lawns and certainly there'd be no problem for the urbanites if those damn farmers would just stop growing all that damnable food.

But none of that's going to happen and the drought doesn't look like it's likely to end for at least a decade and more likely three (or 30 decades) so there are only two solutions: move a LOT of people out of California and do something to end the drought.

I'll remember this quote from you come the end of the summer and this winter...............

 

[Crick]

Are you saying that you believe the drought will not last out the next year?