Bone-dry California dumps water to 'make fish happy'

[Figaro]

Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., is working feverishly to reverse federal and state policies that give fish and rivers priority over people in the distribution of water during the worst drought in California history.
Bone-dry California dumps water to make fish happy

This is not about priority over people only. This problem also in irrational consumption. And of course in short-sighted use of natural resources. Here is the matter of the heart. Americans are probably the most irrational consuming nation.
So it was led, Americans consume without thinking.
Do you know how much water is used to create our usual lifestyle?
We need to take a shower several times day. We need to play golf and fill the unnecessary pools and fountains and etc.

 

[tinydancer]

I've always been into water conservation but I really really understood how precious every drop is when my husband and I decided to go primitive for several years.

Going primitive meant pumping our own water. Aye carumba! It's a real eyeopener as to how what we waste on a normal basis when you just can open a tap or just flush a toilet without working for the wet stuff.

Back on the grid now but have gone thru a couple of droughts and conservation has been the key to keep our well from running dry.

Californians are going to learn a hard lesson for not prepping for this drought and taking action sooner.

 

[tinydancer]

I wanted to tackle the enviro whackos separately. They are anti farming in California.

How insane is that? And they've been driving the environmental policies in California for far too long.

They purposefully skewer the water usage figures in California to make it look like the farmers are the bad guys sucking up all the water.

I personally hope they suffer greatly now and forever more.

Check out these freaking liars.

"Activists intentionally distort agriculture’s use of water to further anti-farming arguments, said Joel Nelsen, chief executive officer of California Citrus Mutual, which represents growers of oranges, lemons, grapefruit and other fruit.

For example, an oft-quoted number that farms handle 80 percent of the state’s water use intentionally leaves out about half of the supply, the part earmarked for environmental protection, he said. Add that in, and farming uses about 40 percent of all water, he said."

The California Department of Water Resources, which tracks use, agrees. “The farmers are right,” said agency spokesman Doug Carlson. From 2001-2010, average net water use in California, counting environmental purposes, was about 47 percent environmental, 43 percent for farming and 10 percent city use. Take out environmental water as a category, however, and farming jumps to almost 77 percent of usage, with city use rising to one fifth, according to state statistics.

That’s the sort of spin Nelson said unfairly singles out farmers, who already have reduced their “crop per drop” in response to less available water, as villains in the water crisis. “What bothers me most about the environmental community is its incredible hypocrisy,” in which activists oppose everything except what makes their own lives more convenient, he said."

More at link. Great article that tells the truth.

Carly Fiorina Right About Environmentalists and California Drought Woes Farm Groups Say - Bloomberg Politics

 

[WinterBorn]

I read the article and would take issue with the "...to make fish happy" description. Maintaining some sort of natural water level is not about "happy", but about keeping numerous species alive. And if that means fewer flushes on toilets, dirty cars or brown yards, so be it. The waste will be flushed. The cars will do fine. And the grass will eventually regrow. But unless measures are taken to maintain the ecosystems, the loss will be permanent.

 

[Stephanie]

While they are going through water restrictions, Gov. Moonbeam is: well I have no Idea. was just reading this. I feel sorry of you people living there

SNIP:




Delta tunnels: Major changes to environmental restoration could endanger Brown's water plan
By Paul Rogers [email protected] © Copyright 2015, Bay Area News Group
Posted: 04/11/2015 0407 PM PDT1 Comment | Updated: about 12 hours ago

Gov. Jerry Brown has billed his $25 billion plan to build two massive tunnels under the Delta as a way to not just make it easier to move water from north to south, but also increase the reliability of water supplies and bring back salmon and other endangered species.



But now the Brown administration is proposing a major and politically risky change: dropping a 50-year guarantee to restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta's environment. A centerpiece of the project, the environmental plan included $8 billion to preserve 100,000 acres of wetlands and dozens of other restoration efforts.




The dramatic course correction, whose details have not yet been made public, comes after biologists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal agencies told the state they won't issue permits for the environmental plan. The reasons, the biologists say, is that the state cannot prove it will restore salmon, smelt, sturgeon and other wildlife struggling for survival in the Delta.




Losing the guarantee of 50 years of environmental restoration would create a substantial political problem for one of Brown's signature projects.




First, it would be easier for environmentalists and other opponents to describe the twin-tunnels plan as little more than a water grab by Southern California, a perception that could make it untenable to Northern Californians.

all of it here
Delta tunnels Major changes to environmental restoration could endanger Brown s water plan - ContraCostaTimes.com

 

[tinydancer]

I read the article and would take issue with the "...to make fish happy" description. Maintaining some sort of natural water level is not about "happy", but about keeping numerous species alive. And if that means fewer flushes on toilets, dirty cars or brown yards, so be it. The waste will be flushed. The cars will do fine. And the grass will eventually regrow. But unless measures are taken to maintain the ecosystems, the loss will be permanent.

But 47 % goes for environmental use, 43% for farming and only 10% for city use. How low do you want to make the human consumption percentage here?

I'm sure the environmentalist whackos would like it to go to zero and have everyone move out of the state. But that ain't going to happen.

 

[Figaro]

A vast amount of water is used to produce the food and products that nations consume. Large population is the greatest factor, but inefficient agriculture or dependence on water-intensive cuisine can exacerbate demand; meat consumption accounts for 30 percent of the U.S. water footprint.

Calculated the per person per day numbers for countries that interested me:
China: 2781 lts/day
India: 2591 lts/day
US: 7175 lts/day
Japan: 3752 lts/day

 

[WinterBorn]

I read the article and would take issue with the "...to make fish happy" description. Maintaining some sort of natural water level is not about "happy", but about keeping numerous species alive. And if that means fewer flushes on toilets, dirty cars or brown yards, so be it. The waste will be flushed. The cars will do fine. And the grass will eventually regrow. But unless measures are taken to maintain the ecosystems, the loss will be permanent.

But 47 % goes for environmental use, 43% for farming and only 10% for city use. How low do you want to make the human consumption percentage here?

I'm sure the environmentalist whackos would like it to go to zero and have everyone move out of the state. But that ain't going to happen.

So much of our urban usage is wasteful. How many gallons are used to flush a cup or two of urine? How many people leave the water running while they brush their teeth? How many people set their sprinkler systems and never adjust them during rainy weather? There are a LOT of ways we can conserve. But we, as Americans, must typically be forced to conserve.

 

[tinydancer]

I read the article and would take issue with the "...to make fish happy" description. Maintaining some sort of natural water level is not about "happy", but about keeping numerous species alive. And if that means fewer flushes on toilets, dirty cars or brown yards, so be it. The waste will be flushed. The cars will do fine. And the grass will eventually regrow. But unless measures are taken to maintain the ecosystems, the loss will be permanent.

But 47 % goes for environmental use, 43% for farming and only 10% for city use. How low do you want to make the human consumption percentage here?

I'm sure the environmentalist whackos would like it to go to zero and have everyone move out of the state. But that ain't going to happen.

So much of our urban usage is wasteful. How many gallons are used to flush a cup or two of urine? How many people leave the water running while they brush their teeth? How many people set their sprinkler systems and never adjust them during rainy weather? There are a LOT of ways we can conserve. But we, as Americans, must typically be forced to conserve.

I'm big on conservation. Not debating that whatsoever. What is disturbing is that the environmentalists out in California have been targeting farmers making agriculture their enemy.

They've diverted billions of gallons of water away from farmland to protect the smelt. The plan hasn't worked at all. It looks like extinction is the future for the delta smelt.

The whackos have prevented the construction of any new reservoirs or any infrastructure like dams so basically the crazy enviro policies have helped bring this to a head.

And on the other had it's really late in the game for those that are so called concerned with the environment to only now begin conserving water.

I guess better late than never.

 

[Moonglow]

Palm Springs seems to have plenty of water too waist......or recycle...

 

[mamooth]

Of that 47% figure, about half of it is in streams in northern California which are close to the coast. Impossible to damn in anything resembling a cost-effective manner, and even if you did damn them, you couldn't sent the water elsewhere in anything resembling a cost-effective manner.

Steph didn't know that. Her cult leaders didn't see fit to tell her, so how could she know?

So Steph is upset that 23% of the water is being used to ensure the ecosystems aren't completely destroyed. Normal people think that's an excellent use of a small fraction of the water.

 

[eagle1462010]

Jesus............California is nuts...............not this article............but plain nuts..............

They need to build the dang Desalination Plants on a fast track and to hell with the Environuts complaints about it....................

There is an Ocean of Water there...........................Use it.