On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 17:14:24 -0700 (PDT), "$27 TRILLION to pay for
03 August 2010
1,100 US counties face water supply crisis by 2050, says report
There is over 60,000,000,000,000,000 gallons (60,000 TRILLION) in the
Great Lakes, 20% of the Worlds freshwater. Replenished every 120
Do you honestly think anyone is going to die of thirst, save some
Mexican trying to cross a desert to sneak into the U.S.?
Yo, bozo. Ever hear of "The continental divide"? How do you propose
to pump trillions of gallons of water over the rockies?
There is no water shortage. Never has been. Never will be. There exists
an unlimited supply. Such "shortage" is nothing more than a made up
crisis by government agencies for the sole purpose of raising water
You've never lived in the West, I take it.
I live in the west, and the 'shortage' is man-made due to poor planning.
There's plenty of water, all it takes is some energy to make it available
wherever it is needed. Too bad politics define energy policy, as opposed
to rational though.
California's Greenie-Made Drought
A typical greenie ploy - restrict water supplies and then blame it on
mythical manmade global warming!
29 Apr 2010
QUOTE: it's been like this for two years now, as Congress and bureaucrats
cite "drought," "global warming" and "endangered species" to deny water to
this $37 billion breadbasket through arbitrary "environmental" quotas.
QUOTE: Whatever the excuse, 75% of the fresh water that has historically
irrigated California is now being washed to the open sea. For farmers in the
southwest part of the valley, last year's cutoff amounted to 90%.
Would France rip out its storied vineyards?
Would Juan Valdez scorch Colombia's coffee crop?
Sri Lanka its black pepper harvest?
China its tea?
With global markets won by nations specializing in doing what they do best,
and with regional reputations important enough to drive some nations to
protectionism, it's almost unthinkable.
But then there's California.
On a springtime drive through the Central Valley, it's hard not to notice
how federal and state governments are hell-bent on destroying the state's
top export - almonds - and everything else in the nation's most productive
Instead of pink blossoms and green shoots along Highway 5 in April, vast
spans from Bakersfield to Fresno sit bone-dry. Brown grass, dead orchards
and lifeless grapevine skeletons stretch for miles for lack of water.
For every fallow field, there's a sign that farmers have placed alongside
the highway: "No Water = No Food," "No Water = No Jobs," "Congress Created
Locals say it's been like this for two years now, as Congress and
bureaucrats cite "drought," "global warming" and "endangered species" to
deny water to this $37 billion breadbasket through arbitrary "environmental"
It started with a 2008 federal court order that stopped water flowing from
northern tributaries on a supposed need to protect a small fish - the delta
smelt - that was getting ground up in the turbines of pump stations that
divert the water south. The court knew it was bad law, but Congress refused
to exempt the fish from the Endangered Species Act and the diversion didn't
help the fish.
After that, the water cutoff was blamed on "drought," though northern
reservoirs are currently full. Now the cry is "save the salmon," a reference
to water needs of the state's northern fisheries.
Whatever the excuse, 75% of the fresh water that has historically irrigated
California is now being washed to the open sea. For farmers in the southwest
part of the valley, last year's cutoff amounted to 90%.
"It's pretty hard to keep crops alive at 10%," says Jim Jasper, who runs a
62-year-old almond farm in Newman that employs 170. "That's one irrigation,
and trees take 10 to 12 over the growing season from March to October."
Almond trees cost $8,000 per acre and take six years to start producing, so
farmers reserved their 10% allocation for mature trees first.
The cutoff didn't kill just trees, however. It also devastated the area's
economy. Unemployment in some valley towns has shot up to 45%. Mortgage
defaults are on the rise, and food lines are lengthening.
Near Bakersfield, Calif., a farmer posts a sign blaming Congress for a sharp
drop in water supplies that has slashed farm output.
Call it what it is: a man-made drought.
Much like organized criminals in big-city fish markets who see to it that
product spoils when kickbacks aren't forthcoming, Washington's pols are now
using their ability to turn water on and off as a coercion tool.
Take the three congressmen who represent the valley and how they were
pressured to vote for President Obama's health care bill.
It didn't go without notice by farmers like Jasper that the 5% water
allocations announced in February for all three congressional districts were
lifted to 25% for the two whose Democratic representatives, Jim Costa of
Fresno and Dennis Cardoza of Modesto, switched their votes on health reform
from "no" to "aye."
Devin Nunes, a Republican from Tulare, wouldn't sell his vote, and parts of
his district had to make do with the 5% allotment.
This isn't the only way water allocation is politicized.
According to Jasper, water in federal districts is distributed by 30-year
contracts that guarantee water but not the quantity. Older irrigation
districts get more, and newer ones (such as Jasper's, which at 60 years in
operation is considered new) get less.
To win political points from time to time, federal officials announce
short-term increases in allocations - most recently, to 30%. But these
increments are so iffy and irregular that farmers can't plan their crops or
arrange for bank loans.
Bureaucrats also do their part to ensure that drought conditions persist.
Lake Shasta, which supplies the federal Central Valley Project though the
Sacramento River, is so full that rice farmers upstream have plenty extra to
sell. But Lake Oroville, which supplies California's State Water Project
through the Feather River, while not in a drought state, is not full.
State regulations say that upstream farmers who get water from Shasta cannot
sell their extra water to the Central Valley farmers because Feather River
farmers along the state system must sell first. It matters not that there's
a surplus on the Shasta side and a deficit on the Oroville side. Even with
the orchards of about a third of the state's 6,000 almond farmers withering,
state bureaucrats are hung up on pecking order.
There's no good reason to destroy California's most productive region, which
turns out 85% of the world's almonds, or to coldly demonize its growers as
That's a favorite slur of leftist politicians, such as Bay Area Rep. George
Miller, who write off the agricultural damage to global warming and drought
while harming the very environment they claim they want to preserve. The
valley's water table, for example, is falling as desperate farmers try to
retrieve whatever supplies they can.
"What they have done is try to create a green utopia in the San Joaquin
Valley, and in the process they are ruining people's lives," Nunes said.
Higher food prices are also on the way, Jasper warns. "Our cost of water to
production is 25% to 30%," he says. "About a third of California almonds are
affected - 280,000 acres out of 800,000."
Another unintended consequence is that much of the food Californians consume
will no longer be local. Some crops will move to Mexico and then must be
imported. Meanwhile, Chile, Spain and Australia have begun to develop their
own almond industries.
This was made painfully obvious in a news photo datelined Mendota, Calif.,
and showing farm workers standing in food lines. The laborers who once
picked vegetables in California's world-renowned "salad bowl" were taking
handouts not of California carrots, but of baby carrots grown in China.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher