What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

California’s water supply is shrinking rapidly (1 Viewer)

timschochet said:
I believe that if it were attempted, 100% of Republicans, plus Manchin and Sinema, would vote against it and kill it, 

That being said I’m certainly in favor of trying. 
Click to expand...
Agree with you re: GOP. But strongly believe Manchin and Sinema would not oppose if stand-alone climate.

The issue w/ Manchin is that the longer it goes on, the more complexity creeps in and therefore more and more delays. Time kills all deals.

If it was just a stand-alone $500 billion climate reconciliation bill last fall, it would have passed in a heartbeat.

But Dems got greedy, went for the social welfare home run instead of the single, and now here we are with inflation and oil and gas complicating what was previously a slam dunk.

 
tymarsas said:
Yeah. I guess you could do an escalating price or something. Your first x gallons cost one price, then over that it gets progressively more expensive per gallon. You'd probably have to do something different for farmers, maybe based on land size or something.
Click to expand...


That's not necessarily a bad idea, but the people who are rich and famous will ALWAYS be able to pay more regardless the price while the average guy gets shut out and it forced to make compromises.  I'm looking at more of a quota system rather than giving someone MORE water simply because they have the resource to pay for it.

Putting a quota on the water gets to the heart of the issue, IMO:  If the average Joe only needs 10 gallons of water per day to function, then Joe #2 shouldn't be able to use 50 more gallons because he can pay for it.  He doesn't need that extra water to survive basic daily functions.  So when Joe #1 goes back to the well the next day there's nothing left because Joe #2 used it up the day before, that's not fair.

The fact that you have a 30 million dollar mansion with 12 baths, 14 showers, 20 toilets and sinks is irrelevant. You don't need that many to survive.

Obviously, farmers and businesses would be on a different schedule but that doesn't mean they get to abuse it either.  Do we really need Almonds to survive?  Or do we cut that crop down and focus more on the crops that can actually can sustain people?  Rice?  Corn? Wheat? etc...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread and great and all but it's the exact same "discussion" that's been going on for 25 years. Lots of emotion, talk and bluster. But at the end of the day absolutely nothing gets done.

The GOP is completely lost on this issue. It is what it is.

But if Democrats truly believe (like they should) that climate is an existential issue, then they need to finally act like it and prioritize accordingly.

Obama could have done it in 2010. But instead chose health care.

A stand-alone climate reconciliation bill could have been passed easily last year. Instead Dems chose social welfare.

Dems can legitimately bash GOP all they want on climate. But at the end of the day they are only marginally better. They've had their opportunities. Lots of big talk, very little action.

 
dkp993 said:
Well the US population was almost 1/4 what it is now (just over 100mil) and the population in general was more family farm based.  We aren’t rolling either of those dials back so talking about practical solutions is probably a better idea then whataboutisms.  
Click to expand...


No one is doing whataboutisms here.  Even back then, was CA taking up 49% of the agricultural receipts as it is now?  Maybe what we need to do is offload that to some of the other states.  Do we really need Almonds, for example?

 
BladeRunner said:
No one is doing whataboutisms here.  Even back then, was CA taking up 49% of the agricultural receipts as it is now?  Maybe what we need to do is offload that to some of the other states.  Do we really need Almonds, for example?
Click to expand...
Maybe we do need almonds.  Maybe we don’t. Or maybe if almonds cost 10x their current cost (because their production consumes so much water) people would substitute a different food in place of almonds.

 
Alex P Keaton said:
1.  It’s not “my idea” but I’ll gladly support rational pricing 

2.  Your alternative is to force everyone else in the country — and hey, the whole world — to shoulder the cost of addressing climate change so that California can continue to over consume water.

But you think my idea is unfair and impractical?   Truly amazing.
Click to expand...
I haven’t offered an alternative. I do think we need to address climate change, but the proposals I’ve seen thrown around are, IMO, as unworkable as yours. 

 
Stoneworker said:
This thread and great and all but it's the exact same "discussion" that's been going on for 25 years. Lots of emotion, talk and bluster. But at the end of the day absolutely nothing gets done.

The GOP is completely lost on this issue. It is what it is.

But if Democrats truly believe (like they should) that climate is an existential issue, then they need to finally act like it and prioritize accordingly.

Obama could have done it in 2010. But instead chose health care.

A stand-alone climate reconciliation bill could have been passed easily last year. Instead Dems chose social welfare.

Dems can legitimately bash GOP all they want on climate. But at the end of the day they are only marginally better. They've had their opportunities. Lots of big talk, very little action.
Click to expand...
Let’s be honest: the Democrats don’t want to do anything about this either. Why? Because there are no immediate political rewards. Nothing they can point to that will make people’s lives immediately better. 
This I believe is at the heart of it

 
BladeRunner said:
No one is doing whataboutisms here.  Even back then, was CA taking up 49% of the agricultural receipts as it is now?  Maybe what we need to do is offload that to some of the other states.  Do we really need Almonds, for example?
Click to expand...
I agree. Especially with the almonds take. But the problem is that speaks to the larger selfish nature of humans.  No one’s willing to sacrifice, ever. The consumers won’t sacrifice for the lack of almonds and the corporations won’t bear the lack of profitability. As much as I would like to “pie in the sky” believe those things could happen, the reality is they won’t.  That’s why I keep going back to practical solutions that might actually take place. California is, and likely always will be extraordinarily important to not just the US economy but the world. That’s not changing. We need solutions that work within this framework. 

 
Alex P Keaton said:
Spot on.  Let’s address root causes:

1.  Agriculture industry on CA uses too much water inefficiently

2.  Too many people have moved to CA

3.  Those people in CA are using water for personal purposes inefficiently

4.   Climate change is reducing the water supply

Charge way more for water.  Presto!  Simple things will follow:

- the Ag industry will adjust and use less water

- people will contemplate higher water costs in their decision of where to live

- people (and businesses) will learn how to conserve water

- the above will free up scientists to figure out how much time and resource is required to address the climate change (supply) side of the equation
Click to expand...
This is the way. 

 
dickey moe said:
Unfortunately the California Coastal Commission (a body of unelected bureaucrats with immense decision-making authority) doesn't want them.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure thats accurate.  But they certainly want to do what all bureaucrats do, make it far more difficult and costly to do then necessary.  

 
dkp993 said:
I agree. Especially with the almonds take. But the problem is that speaks to the larger selfish nature of humans.  No one’s willing to sacrifice, ever. The consumers won’t sacrifice for the lack of almonds and the corporations won’t bear the lack of profitability. As much as I would like to “pie in the sky” believe those things could happen, the reality is they won’t.  That’s why I keep going back to practical solutions that might actually take place. California is, and likely always will be extraordinarily important to not just the US economy but the world. That’s not changing. We need solutions that work within this framework. 
Click to expand...


I agree that if sacrifices have to be made, then they are made equally amongst all parties.

If Almond Company A is unwilling to make sacrifices because they would be less profitable but expect Average Joe to sacrifice so Almond Company A can continue to profit, than that is untenable.

CA is going to have to compromise as well.  "Everyone sacrifice so we can keep CA doing the same things it always does" is not going to play well.

Simply put, since this this is a CA issue, I say CA needs to sacrifice more.  Let' say like a 60-40 type thing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
No one is doing whataboutisms here.  Even back then, was CA taking up 49% of the agricultural receipts as it is now?  Maybe what we need to do is offload that to some of the other states.  Do we really need Almonds, for example?
Click to expand...
It’s also not as simple as your “California taking” up stance. This was/is a byproduct of a cultural shift.  As people got away from farming industry filled the food need.  Cali and its weather and huge swaths of land made the most sense.  Society drove this though its shifting dynamic.  

 
timschochet said:
I haven’t offered an alternative. I do think we need to address climate change, but the proposals I’ve seen thrown around are, IMO, as unworkable as yours. 
Click to expand...
Sure you have.  You suggested that we all need to address climate change so that your state doesn’t run out of water.  That’s your alternative — since CA can’t address its own demand issue, the rest of us have to pitch in to solve the supply issue, which revolves around climate change.

Note:  I’m not opposed to addressing climate change for broader reasons.  It just annoys me that the rest of us have to bail out California due to the state leadership’s incompetence.

 
dkp993 said:
It’s also not as simple as your “California taking” up stance. This was/is a byproduct of a cultural shift.  As people got away from farming industry filled the food need.  Cali and its weather and huge swaths of land made the most sense.  Society drove this though its shifting dynamic.  
Click to expand...


I think we can all agree this is not simple.  No one is suggesting otherwise.

However, CA doesn't get to operate like business as usual while we get the task of sacrificing and solving their issue.  Sacrifices will need to be made, and mostly from CA.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Let’s be honest: the Democrats don’t want to do anything about this either. Why? Because there are no immediate political rewards. Nothing they can point to that will make people’s lives immediately better. 
This I believe is at the heart of it
Click to expand...
Nope. Ain't having any of that defeatism. This announced last week from the bipartisan infrastructure bill is proof something can be done. The technology is already there. People just need to stop talking and act.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced $3.1 billion in funding from President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to make more batteries and components in America, bolster domestic supply chains, create good-paying jobs, and help lower costs for families. 

https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-administration-announces-316-billion-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-boost-domestic

 
BladeRunner said:
I agree that if sacrifices have to be made, then they are made equally amongst all parties.

 If Almond Company A is unwilling to make sacrifices because they would be less profitable but expect Average Joe to sacrifice so Almond Company A can continue to profit, than that is untenable.

CA is going to have to compromise as well.  "Everyone sacrifice so we can keep CA doing the same things it always does" is not going to play well.

Simply put, since this this is a CA issue, I say CA needs to sacrifice more.  Let' say like a 60-40 type thing.
Click to expand...
 Not sure how we accomplish the Almond company A issue.  Especially from a true practically aspect but I am open to a viable plan. 

Regarding us residents making sacrifices, we already do.  Water rationing and fines are already in place and happening with even more stringent restrictions coming into play.  🤷.  Could there be more.  Sure, maybe.  But to act as if there isn’t sacrificing already happening is simply not true or accurate.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
I think we can all agree this is not simple.  No one is suggesting otherwise.

However, CA doesn't get to operate like business as usual while we get the task of sacrificing and solving their issue.  Sacrifices will need to be made, and mostly from CA.
Click to expand...
See my next post regarding this.  But just understand while you may or may not be correct on this as we feed the whole country this will be a whole country problem like it or not.  

 
dkp993 said:
 Ot sure how we accomplish the Almond company A issue.  Especially from a true practically aspect but I am open to a viable plan. 

Regarding us residents making sacrifices, we already do.  Water rationing and fines are already in place and happening with even more stringent restrictions coming into play.  🤷.  Could there be more.  Sure, maybe.  But to act as if there isn’t sacrificing already happening is simply not true or accurate.  
Click to expand...


You may need to sacrifice more.  I dunno.  I don't have the answers but I'm not sacrificing anything so your Almond farmers can continue to use 10+% of the water for a crop of food we don't really need as anything more than a delicacy at best.

Almonds, obviously, are just an arbitrary example.  Maybe we cut that down to 4% of water use and that frees up 6% more for other, more important things. 

 
BladeRunner said:
Putting a quota on the water gets to the heart of the issue, IMO:  If the average Joe only needs 10 gallons of water per day to function, then Joe #2 shouldn't be able to use 50 more gallons because he can pay for it.  He doesn't need that extra water to survive basic daily functions.  So when Joe #1 goes back to the well the next day there's nothing left because Joe #2 used it up the day before, that's not fair..
Click to expand...
I think this is a great idea, but good luck implementing this. People would lose their ####### mind with all this governmental control of their lives

 
dkp993 said:
See my next post regarding this.  But just understand while you may or may not be correct on this as we feed the whole country this will be a whole country problem like it or not.  
Click to expand...


CA wasn't feeding the country as a whole 100 years ago.  How did the USA ever survive before that without CA?  Heck, even before it was a state? 

The point I'm trying to make is that maybe we start distributing that across other states so the water problem in CA becomes much less of an issue.  Yeah, I get that certain crops need certain climates to grow prosperously, but we're talking generalities here from 50K feet.

Obviously the devil is in the details.

 
the moops said:
Also, pretty sure almond farmers use 10% of the agriculture water, not 10% of the total water.
Click to expand...


I dunno.  I'm just assuming they're using water they get from CA and the CO river, which I assume is also being turned into drinking water.  If farmers are using 10% of that water that COULD be turned into drinking water, then that's still an issue, IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
the moops said:
There are about 5 times as many people in this country now compared to 1900
Click to expand...


Yeah, I get that.  And of course things change over time but maybe what needs to change is we stop relying less on CA and shift that burden to other states instead.

That way, Kim Kardashian and @timschochet will have enough water to flush yesterday's bran bar and Wilford Brimley's Oatmeal down their toilet in their 12th bathroom.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
You may need to sacrifice more.  I dunno.  I don't have the answers but I'm not sacrificing anything so your Almond farmers can continue to use 10+% of the water for a crop of food we don't really need as anything more than a delicacy at best.

Almonds, obviously, are just an arbitrary example.  Maybe we cut that down to 4% of water use and that frees up 6% more for other, more important things. 
Click to expand...
I don’t eat almonds so we could burn those farms to the ground as far as I’m concerned.  But like everything it’s just not that simple.  

And 2 quick things. If you or anyone you know buy almonds you’re part of the problem.  And second you’ll likely have no real choice in your sacrifice.  

 
BladeRunner said:
CA wasn't feeding the country as a whole 100 years ago.  How did the USA ever survive before that without CA?  Heck, even before it was a state? 

The point I'm trying to make is that maybe we start distributing that across other states so the water problem in CA becomes much less of an issue.  Yeah, I get that certain crops need certain climates to grow prosperously, but we're talking generalities here from 50K feet.

Obviously the devil is in the details.
Click to expand...
I answered this already. Size and the country’s demographics are not even remotely the same now.  You’re asking for the entire country and culture to massively shift back 100yrs.  That simply will not happen, so it’s not even worth discussing.   

 
dkp993 said:
I don’t eat almonds so we could burn those farms to the ground as far as I’m concerned.  But like everything it’s just not that simple.  

And 2 quick things. If you or anyone you know buy almonds you’re part of the problem.  And second you’ll likely have no real choice in your sacrifice.  
Click to expand...


I would bet simply getting rid of Almonds altogether probably solves your problem.  😝

I HATE almonds with the ferocity of 1000 suns.

 
dkp993 said:
I answered this already. Size and the country’s demographics are not even remotely the same now.  You’re asking for the entire country and culture to massively shift back 100yrs.  That simply will not happen, so it’s not even worth discussing.   
Click to expand...


It will if we make it happen.  Things shift all the time.

If you're asking others to sacrifice while CA doesn't, then you're not going to get any buy in, IMO.

 
BladeRunner said:
Yeah, I get that.  And of course things change over time but maybe what needs to change is we stop relying less on CA and shift that burden to other states instead.

That way, Kim Kardashian and @timschochet will have enough water to flush yesterday's bran bar and Wilford Brimley's Oatmeal down their toilet in their 12th bathroom.
Click to expand...
I only have 8 bathrooms. That’s middle class for California. We don’t all live like Kim. 

 
People too focused on CA due to the OP. This is an issue across the West and the "heartland." The whole country is dependent on it for food including beef and crops.

Lake Mead, Lake Powell, Ogallala Aquifer (underneath primarily Nebraska) all at historic low levels due to depletion and drought.

So civil warfare across states is meaningless and counterproductive.

 
Stoneworker said:
People too focused on CA due to the OP. This is an issue across the West and the "heartland." The whole country is dependent on it for food including beef and crops.

Lake Mead, Lake Powell, Ogallala Aquifer (underneath primarily Nebraska) all at historic low levels due to depletion and drought.

So civil warfare across states is meaningless and counterproductive.
Click to expand...
Could not agree more, as my first pots on this talked about, water issues are a worldwide problem that must be solved.  

BladeRunner said:
It will if we make it happen.  Things shift all the time.

If you're asking others to sacrifice while CA doesn't, then you're not going to get any buy in, IMO.
Click to expand...
We are sacrificing and no doubt will continue too more and more(and to a greater degree).  Saying we currently aren’t is a simply untrue.  

I know you feel like you’ve got a great grasp on us Californians but your views are very stereotypical and simply not reflective of the vast majority of the near 40mil residents here.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
Could not agree more, as my first pots on this talked about, water issues are a worldwide problem that must be solved.  

We are sacrificing and no doubt will continue too more and more(and to a greater degree).  Saying we currently aren’t is a simply untrue.  

I know you feel like you’ve got a great grasp on us Californians but your views are very stereotypical and simply not true for the vast majority of the near 40mil residents here.  
Click to expand...


Well, I do have family that lives there so I'm not completely unawares of what is going in on CA, but I'm sure there are things that I'm missing that maybe only a resident can understand.

But CA HyprocrisyTM certainly colors my view so I'm probably not the most accepting of CA issues.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alex P Keaton said:
So to keep the costs down for the poor…..we also have to continue subsidizing big business?  That makes zero sense.
Click to expand...
No. I'm fine if you find a way to increase prices for business while maintaining prices for consumption. More specifically, I am fine if you find a way to increase prices for non-essential use. If you increase prices for consumption and food production, it is going to have some negative consequences. Those negative consequences should be considered. That was my original point. 

 
BladeRunner said:
The fact that you have a 30 million dollar mansion with 12 baths, 14 showers, 20 toilets and sinks is irrelevant. You don't need that many to survive.
Click to expand...


Not totally relevant but I just want to point out that I can have 100 toilets and, unless they get flushed, they aren't using a lot of water.  Same with showers.  If no one is taking a shower they aren't using water.  The point being that if someone does have all the baths, showers, and toilets you're talking about and those are responsible for all the water use the likelihood is that there are enough people in the house to warrant that extra water use.  The more likely culprit of excessive water use in mansions is the landscaping.  So maybe they don't need 5 acres of lawn in their backyard that needs daily watering.

 
tymarsas said:
No. I'm fine if you find a way to increase prices for business while maintaining prices for consumption. More specifically, I am fine if you find a way to increase prices for non-essential use. If you increase prices for consumption and food production, it is going to have some negative consequences. Those negative consequences should be considered. That was my original point. 
Click to expand...
More than fair points

 
Stoneworker said:
People too focused on CA due to the OP. This is an issue across the West and the "heartland." The whole country is dependent on it for food including beef and crops.

Lake Mead, Lake Powell, Ogallala Aquifer (underneath primarily Nebraska) all at historic low levels due to depletion and drought.

So civil warfare across states is meaningless and counterproductive.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Posted an article outlining the impacts of drought on AZ. Crickets. Probably not as easy/satisfying to bash AZ vs. CA. Would postulate the civil warfare across states mentioned here is a feature, not a bug, of this discussion.

 
Alex P Keaton said:
More than fair points
Click to expand...
Chile has a similar problem (ie. Currently going through a 13 year long drought). But they have a completely privatised water system. It has basically driven all the smaller farmers out of business because all the big farmers/corporations have bought up any available water supply (and sucked rivers and lakes dry).

 
John123 said:
Not totally relevant but I just want to point out that I can have 100 toilets and, unless they get flushed, they aren't using a lot of water.  Same with showers.  If no one is taking a shower they aren't using water.  The point being that if someone does have all the baths, showers, and toilets you're talking about and those are responsible for all the water use the likelihood is that there are enough people in the house to warrant that extra water use.  The more likely culprit of excessive water use in mansions is the landscaping.  So maybe they don't need 5 acres of lawn in their backyard that needs daily watering.
Click to expand...


Yep, good points and you're right - it's probably landscaping.

 
BladeRunner said:
20 minutes ago, John123 said:
Not totally relevant but I just want to point out that I can have 100 toilets and, unless they get flushed, they aren't using a lot of water.  Same with showers.  If no one is taking a shower they aren't using water.  The point being that if someone does have all the baths, showers, and toilets you're talking about and those are responsible for all the water use the likelihood is that there are enough people in the house to warrant that extra water use.  The more likely culprit of excessive water use in mansions is the landscaping.  So maybe they don't need 5 acres of lawn in their backyard that needs daily watering.
Expand  
Click to expand...


Yep, good points and you're right - it's probably landscaping.
Click to expand...
Most of LA, Ventura and San Bernardino county is moving this month to mandated 1 day of lawn watering maximum a week.  Heavy fines ensue for use above this.  
 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/26/california-outdoor-watering-restrictions-drought

 
Last edited by a moderator:
if CA sacrifices the delta smelt, a lot of the water problems go away (at least on the agriculture side). 

 
Quint said:
if CA sacrifices the delta smelt, a lot of the water problems go away (at least on the agriculture side). 
Click to expand...
Admittedly I don’t know a ton about this but as I understand it if this “sacrifice” was made wouldn’t it disrupt the food chain pretty badly?  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Z Machine
California's $100b budget surplus
Replies
21
Views
767
the moops
the moops
GordonGekko
The Atlantic: "Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change" (6/23/22 01:00 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Maggot Brain
Maggot Brain
pinkham13
The problem with America is God hating Marxists trained in our schools
3 4 5
Replies
237
Views
6K
Amused to Death
A

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top