My Photo

May 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

BlogStats


« Sandbox - 16feb15 | Main | America's Dunkirk Foreign Policy »

18 February 2015

Comments

Gregory

"So anyone with minimum reading skills should understand that this act by President Obama is illegal and has nothing to do with prosecutorial discretion."

No George, it was all about prosecutorial discretion... it actually removed it entirely by declaring entire classes of persons would not be prosecuted at all.

George Rebane

Gregory 833pm - A cynical interpretation indeed, but there is nothing in the Constitution or in case law which says that prosecutorial discretion can be or has ever been implemented by the executive writing new law. That was the point of Judge Hanen's ruling.

Bill  Tozer

The point of Judge Hansen ruling was Obama's creation of affirmative benefits to millions of people. Work permits, eligibity for benefits, legal status, eligibity for a Social Security card, health care, etc. If it was merely the Obama Administraion refusing to deport anyone or an entire class of people, then that is not reviewable and is indeed Constitutional prosecutorial discretion.
Think it was Arizona that sued the Federal Gov't in the later 90's on the issue of not deporting people and lost big time in the Supreme Court.
The Court objected to creating affirmative benefits (a new law) as opposed to simply not enforcing the law. Maybe we are all saying the same thing, but prosecutorial discretion was not even an issue. Nor is it reviewable. The Judge said not deporting is different from giving a whole class of people affirmative benefits without legislation passed by Congress. Obama went too far beyond simple banning deportation for 3 years.

Bill  Tozer

You cannot take an illegal alien here and with an Executuve Order declare him/her legal. No, we are not talking about refugees or those whose country of orgin refuse to take them back, like China does.
Most of the Dream Act has already been made into law by Congress. No problem with that. It's the plan to extend legal status to parents of a child born here as well as illegal aliens living here since 2012 that the court disagreed with. Especially the directives from the new DHS boss. The judge left everything unsettled by saying the Administration made an administrative no-no. Time will tell.

Don't know when the Speaket of the House finally grew a pair, but he apparently has. Now is the perfect time for him to display his new found marbles and stand up tall to protect the separation of powers, despite the onslaught of brutal bad publicity.

joe smith

4,000 acre ft is a drip off the faucet when compared with the size of the SF Bay. Just how much water would you deem "reasonable?" 4,000 af is probably NOT going to be enough to stop salt intrusion up to Walnut Grove and possibly Sacramento itself.. Many more than 4,000 af of well water will be contaminated and crop land destroyed if fresh water isn't allowed to flush the delta. Tens of thousands of jobs rely on flushing flows into the bay. The SF Oakland fishing fleets (and associated industries) would go belly up. Again, please tell us how much water would you deem reasonable to send out to sea?

George Rebane

joes 831am - I'm not sure you're catching the import of this MARGINAL diversion of water into the ocean. On an annual basis this would support over 365,000 additional acres of agriculture, AND provide adequate water supply for 1,460,000 households (or various combinations thereof). Not insignificant numbers.

joe smith

I do admire your mathematical skills, but for once you are not looking at the whole equation. Salt water intrusion threatens 500,000 acres of delta farmlands. These acres produce about 5 times the value as similar acres in the Southern San Joaquin Valley (think cotton vs asparagus). Well over a million Bay Area households are served by the EBMUD pumping station at Freeport. Between Freeport and Sherman Island another 750,000 households are served via direct pumping of the Sacramento River or groundwater recharge from the river. A flushing flow of 4,000 acre feet of water is an investment in the heartland security of Northern California. Sending our water to Southern California would be a grave mistake.

George Rebane

joes 123pm - excellent response. Can you cite the study that has determined the impacts at Freeport and Sherman Island that would suffer were the 4K ac-ft export of water to be resumed.

BTW, even though a lifelong former resident of soCal, I am no fan of reckless export of norCal water to that arid semi-desert. We always wondered when the northerners were going to get wise, and just cut back our water supply. Gotta admit though, soCal is beautiful when they can soak their lawns and other greenies in our water. Nevertheless, they do contribute a bit to the state's GDP.

Paul Emery

George

I know you are a supported or a new state or States for Northern California. How in your view would that effect our water policy towards the South State?

George Rebane

PaulE 356pm - Not informed on current water agreements with the south, I would still expect that part of SoJ statehood would require honoring those agreements. But were those to sunset, the new ones would involve some serious pro quid quo for the water they would then buy. In reality, I would expect that in the time frame we are considering, there would be major advances in desalinization technology and possibly even fusion power that may make the whole water question moot.

In the meanwhile, I still look at all the water in the Columbia River and think that Oregon could make a buck piping it California and Nevada.

Gregory

"BTW, even though a lifelong former resident of soCal, I am no fan of reckless export of norCal water to that arid semi-desert."

I'm also no fan of reckless export of western Sierra Nevada water to the city and county of 'Frisco. That water could be better used in the Central Valley right now, which is where it would be had the Hetch Hetchy Dam not been built to take the water elsewhere.

There's not a chance in hell that Oregonians will ship water to California.

George Rebane

Gregory 420pm - Since what I'm suggesting is a straightforward business decision that would fatten their state coffers and not impact their own water consumption one whit, why do you think the Oregonians would oppose such a decision if it penciled out?

joe smith

GR 231-
4K af is a simplistic and meaningless number in and of itself. The Delta is a dynamic system where EC changes are due to the whim of upstream releases, downstream pumping, tides and even wind direction. Right now we are balanced at maximum allowable EC at several of our pumping stations. CEQA has been relaxed due to the drought emergency and already delta farms are switching to more salt tolerant crops. Unfortunately, salt intrusion leaves a footprint that can last decades. The primary objection by EBMUD to establish pumping at Freeport rather than on the American River itself (where they have water rights) was the threat of salt water intrusion. In less than a decade that threat is looming. My guess is that 4k is nothing more than a dart tossed at a moving target. . . a target that is already hard to hit and no one knows where the bullseye is. I would error on the side of maintaining a stong fresh water current moving salt ward. A nice, but abbreviated link would be: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/drinking_water_policy/salinity_conceptual_model/pgs28_38.pdf

Brad C.

Forget the bullet train, we need a big pipe from a reliable water source.

Todd Juvinall

Brad is correct. When I traveled to Idaho last year in November thru Oregon, all the rivers and lakes there were full. The Columbia River was topped out. I though why can't we build a p[pipeline from the Columbia to say Shasta?

Bill  Tozer

State estimates put just the yearly maintance costs of a large network of water tunnels proposed at....drum roll please....at over 30 billion a year on the lowest conservative side....that is after the tunnels are built. We are screwed. People, fish, saltwater intrusion all competing for a limited water supply. Washington State has water, but they use it to sell us electricity. They also say they are in a drought. If we take their water, there goes some of our grid. Double screwed. It's Arizona's time to get the lion's share of the Colorado River water. They waited their turn and per agreements lawfully executed by both states many moons ago, that date way out in the future has arrived and now much less Colorado River water is earmarked for the cement ponds and golf courses from Palm Springs to Beverly Hills. Arizona's population is growing and they have the legal papers in their now wet little hands. Arizona's people come first. We are triple screwed.

Let's meet at the park and do a rain dance. Or, build a pipeline from Canada to LA.

Bill  Tozer

Todd, if we took one drop of water from the Columbia River, the good citizens of The Evergreen State would storm Olympia and hang the Governor and the entire legislature in the public square within an hour. Just the topic of selling hot tub lubbing crazy California a single gallon of Washington State water would create a dangerous situation as riots and infuriated passions would flame the herd mentality and the ensuing wholesale bloodshed. The results would be unspeakable. "Kill the beast, kill the beast!"

Gregory

Transporting Oregon water to Californians in California who will make more Californians with it will never fly in the northwest. It isn't something one can analyze rationally. It ain't economics at work.

If Californians want Oregon water I'd suggest moving there and getting new Oregon license plates, drivers license and passport as soon as possible before too many figure out where they're from.

joe smith

"Forget the bullet train, we need a big pipe from a reliable water source."
California is blessed a Mediterranean climate and the best irrigable soils in the world. We are also blessed with an 800 mile coastline, where, at any point, we can extract fresh water from the sea. Pipelines from the Columbia River? WTF?

George Rebane

Noone still answered why Oregon would object to revenues from water exports that do not affect their own water supply. Why the crickets?

Gregory

no crickets,GR. they'd be happy to take the money ... Californians vacationing in OR are welcome to fill up their canteens on their way home. more than that... dream on.

Bill  Tozer

Joe Š, "where at any point we can extract fresh water from the sea." Me thinks you better run that by the California Coastal Commission prior to drawing up plans. They have already ordered the removal of rooftop wind turbines from homes along the coast.

Meanwhile, the good residences of the little subdivision down in Big Oak Valley near Beale (called Golden Oaks or something) just received the splendid news that their HOA is charging each residence a measly 400 plus bucks a month for water services. They might need to import fresh water from coastal desalination operations. Just a helpful hint.

Brad C.

Nuclear desalination? Diablo Canyon would make a super tea kettle.

joe smith

Bill 3:27
Does the stork bring you your news?
California has two dozen desal plants in operation including the 56 million gallon/day operation in Carlsbad. Browns emergency drought declaration specifically allows desal to be built without jumping through normal CEQA channels.

Bill  Tozer

Joe Š, I stand corrected. 24 desal plants along our 800 mile coast? Wow, I had no idea there is one every 33 miles of coastline. If we build another two dozen, then that would be a desal plant every 16 miles of coastline. Just hope the rising sea levels don't mess with them.
Yep, time the coastal beautiful folks send us some fresh water. It's only fair.

Bill  Tozer

All our desal plants can explain those fish and marine mammals wasting up dead on the beaches. It's getting too salty for them. That's what happens when you let up on regulations.

Paul Emery

George

In your view what is an adequate fresh water flow in the Delta to avoid salt water intrusion?

Todd Juvinall

George, is there any data or info about the Delta inflows and outflows prior to the dams of the last century? I recall that before Spaulding was built the South Yuba would go dry in the summer.

joe smith

Paul-
You are asking for a very simple answer to an extremely complex and dynamic situation. First of all, where does intrusion start? The salt/fresh mixing zone used to be in Suisun Bay near Fairfield. Today it is near Rio Vista.
Todd-
There are tons of data at your fingertips if you know how to use Google.In a nutshell, prior to the construction of Rim Dams the Delta was above sea level and salt water intrusion occurred around Fairfield (see above). The Delta used to be a giant marsh, but was drained and captured behind levee walls to keep the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers from flooding the area. Due to ground subsidence the Delta is now below sea level. The ocean wants to fill the area. Adding to that the pumps draw so much water that the San Joaquin flows uphill and sucks salt water in behind it.

Todd Juvinall

Got some links to back that up? It does not seem physically possible as you describe it.

George Rebane

PaulE 913am, Toddj 921am - yes, there is a lot of historical, often conflicting, data on the delta. And as joes' 1009am points out, it is a complex system of flows and levels that are now (completely?) managed by Man. The only things that have not been reliably established are the discomfort levels of fish if historical pumping rates to the south San Joachin and soCal are maintained. Like most of the rulings from the EPA and CEPA, new delta management protocols are based on politics and little science.

All of these policies can be most easily integrated and understood when we recall that the ultimate A21 objective is to remove humans from the Sierra. More complex and confusing explanations are also available for faithful.

Paul Emery

George

Since in your view there is little reliable date to base reasonable decisions on would it not be prudent to set a high threshold till this information is available. That, by the way, is a very conservative position in a classical sense. Tread lightly because the consequences of miscalculation could cause great harm.

You did not attempt to answer my basic question of estimations salt water intrusion. Instead you deflected it towards A21, the usual scratch pad for anything not explained.

Paul Emery

Wording it differently George do we know without a reasonable doubt that diverting more water from the Delta would NOT cause drastic harm to the environment?

George Rebane

PaulE 1251pm - I didn't "deflect towards A21", I don't know the levels of salt water intrusion, nor can interpret their impact even if someone gave me the God's truth numbers for them (which interpretation I submit is not reliably known by anyone today). But I could expand my opinion in a cogent direction by explaining away the liberal's decision as being coherent with outline A21 objectives for humanity.

A21, as far as the Left's public policies are concerned, is far from being "the usual scratch pad for anything not explained". But it is the long-established label that embraces all such policies based on reasons explained and not explained. In short, attributing A21 satisfies Occam's razor.

Now, if we wish to "tread lightly" in the absence of reliable information, then under almost all conceivable utility functions the policy of 'Don't fix it if it ain't broke' applies as the lightest tread.

Russ Steele

Paul@12:59PM

Studies show that the San Francisco Bay marshes have experienced more salinity about 600 years ago than the salinity of the marshes are today, about 22.5%. This increase in salinity started about 1800 years ago when it was about 16%, when California experiences some very long droughts. Thirty years from 1021-1051, 40 years from 1130-1170, 25 five years from 1240-1265 and 22 years from 1360-1382. After peaking about 580 years ago, it declined. The average is now slightly lower than the peak of 23.5% 580 years ago. So, we have a paleo record of what happens in the Bay when salinity increases. We have been living in a relatively wet period and could experience some very long droughts in the near future.

Paul Emery

So George in your view any concern for the intrusion of salt water into the delta is consistent with support for A21? Don't you think that deciding on the side of caution is justifiable in such a crucial matter? That, by the way is a true Conservative position. If the effect isn't known than how can it be justifiable to continue? Gold miners had their "Canarie in the cave" to warn them of the lack of oxygen. Is it possible that the preservation of certain fish fulfills that function? If not that what do you recommend or should we have any indicators at all?

joe smith

Todd 10:54.
The information is so voluminous and so readily available, my guess is that you aren't in the slightest bit curious and are simply flapping your tongue for the sake of flapping your tongue.

Paul 12:59
Present day water diversions (and pumping, and channel alteration, and sediment flow impairment, and . . . ) have drastically effected the Delta. More diversions will certainly effect the Delta even more. It is a question of what are we willing to live with and there are as many opinions as there are people in California.

Russ 14:16
You numbers are what I understand to be true. If CalFed gave us anything useful, it was a tremendous amount of information about the area. Pretty expensive and wasteful lesson none-the-less. The difference between high salinity 600 years ago and today is that back then hundreds of thousands of acres of crops and multiple millions of people didn't depend on it for their existence.

George Rebane

PaulE 355pm et al - All the proponents of sending more fresh water through the delta into the ocean sound like they know what the quantitative impacts are on fish and agriculture (i.e. the transfer function). The fact is such knowledge is absent and brown science is put in its place which then true believers like you and others here immediately accept as revealed truth. My position is precisely that of a conservetarian trained in the sciences, among them being decision science. BTW, similar argumentation is offered by those claiming equal knowledge in the climate sciences which also is absent.

Todd Juvinall

JoeSmith 4:07 pm. As I suspected you have no links or data to back up yur claims and you refuse to answer my question. You are a fraud.

Walt

Hear the latest on Gov. insanity? The foretold "food police" have reared their ugly head.
They demand we eat more vegetative matter over meat. ( Do they forget that takes water?)
Hell! Even boobtube time needs to be "overseen"...( Now just how will the government plan on doing that???) Lefty "Big brother" is alive and well... Oh.. BTW,, This is all about fighting climate change. ( Their words,,, not mine...) No wonder LIBS want the young ones to smoke dope. You would need to, actually believe that crap.

http://www.foodpolitics.com/

joe smith

Todd, you might simply start with Wikipedia then link out to their several hundred links. You could even be a super brainiac like my 9 year old daughter and Google CalFed. I refuse to hold your hand.

George 512
I am an environmental scientist, NOT to be confused with an environmentalist. I don't know anything about fish, but the equilibrium between outstream flow and salt water intrusion is very well known. The debate is not about science, it is about money. On both sides.

Todd Juvinall

Backing up your claims is holding someone's hand? JoeSmith, you are simply a fraud. Get on board the brain train and stop obfuscating. Your nine year old daughter expects nothing less from dada.

George Rebane

joes 652pm - Excellent Mr/Dr? smith. Then you will have no problem pointing me to the literature that contains the model which defines "equilibrium between outstream flow and salt water intrusion". And I do hope that the model is not just a steady state solution to a set of partial differential flow equations which would give away the store on how "very well known" is such an intrusion. I know, and you should know, that we have here a dynamic process with sufficiently long time constants due to tidal effects, variability of fresh water inflows, and the large and complex configuration of the Sacramento River delta containing multiple estuaries. The stochasticities involved must be mind-boggling, therefore such systems cannot easily or at all be modeled as being at some point of deterministic equilibrium.

(For the Sac delta the dynamic model should contain at a minimum 2N partial diff eqns where N is the number of estuaries impacted by tidal and fresh water flows. And at least another 2N to describe the error propagation through the affected portion of the delta.)

Please feel free to counter this argument from the literature that includes measurements of the stable salinity levels corroborated by the equilibrium model. I love it when someone claims that the debate about the science involved is over, but do agree with your money observation.

joe smith

George 758P
You are absolutely correct. In trying to dumb it down for Todd I come across as dumb (or ignorant, or trying to sell something). I'm not sure where this model is you are trying to hang your hat, or my neck on. I have never suggested there is any such a model, and in fact, denounce the proscribed models from USGS, USACE, and CalFed. That said, we DO have a very good handle on the fact that downstream push counteracts upstream push. The more flow we shove into the system, the further down system the salt water influx will occur.

Russ Steele

JoeS and George

Here is a link to the river delta flow and salinity models: http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/modeling/deltamodeling/modelingdata/DEM.cfm

Have fun!

George Rebane

joes 850pm - very well then, there must be some article in the literature that quantifies this downstream push counteracting with upstream push for the channels of the Sac delta. We both know that simply explaining that counteraction is a notch away from a tautology that should be useless for substantiating public policy on the water flows in question. My guess is that some environmentalist or, better, environmental scientist waved some such 'model' in front of legislators or their staff. Then arm-in-arm with fish comfort experts they fashioned the sad tale of how fish and land would be oversalted if we didn't increase freshwater outflows into the delta estuaries.

But I would be willing to bet a good part of the farm that there was nothing what I was taught and practiced as science involved with any of the water allocation policies now in effect and contemplated for the future. The policies are in their very nature corrupt and designed to satisfy larger political agendas and money flows.

Still, whatever you can dig up on such models or even citations of data measurments would be of help. It is always interesting and fun to discover the crap that our 'honorables' foist on their gruberized constituencies. (Some years back I did a little study of the 'science' behind Nevada County's ozone scare that was then in high dudgeon. The bullshit was immediately apparent, and the doors to further inquiries were immediately slammed shut.)

Walt

"O" is batting a thousand with his "revisionism" of the facts of history.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/20/obama-islam-woven-into-the-fabric-of-our-country-since-founding/

Yes.. Insanity

George Rebane

RussS 912pm - Thanks for the link, but it does not connect to any models. It only connects to a very long and confusing project hopes document on what should be done with CalSim II, the so-called model whose peer reviewed shortcomings and unfinished parts are legion. Most certainly it is not ready to substantiate any public policies. (Read Sec 4)

The overall development program contemplated will take a very big and capable science and software engineering team. That the California Water Resources Board could manage such a project is simply a pipedream.

My former assessment about the technical background for California's water policies was that it is based on a handful of heuristics and bucket load of brown numbers - both more than sufficient to bamboozle the innumerates. There was nothing on that website to recommend changing this assessment. I am afraid that joe smith's 'equilibrium model' is nothing beyond a textbook exposition of a simple fluid mixing model derived for an idealized river/stream channel. Derivation of such an idealized model would be standard fare for a sophomore or junior level physics major.

Bottom line, the evidence at hand is not very convincing for supporting any water diversion policy to knowledgeably impact the delta's fish, fowl, and farms.

Don Bessee

Sounds like Paul E does not subscribe to Darwin. Please review the number of species that came and went before us. If we interrupt that cycle are we helping or hurting? Why with the absolutist science as god view so prevalent that we hear every day of 'we just found this or that we never saw'? It is the don't keep score in kiddie soccer world view filters at play with PE.

Russ Steele

George@10:02PM

The models are listed on the right side of the page. Click on the models link and it expands the selection of models.

Section Pages
Central Valley Modeling
Delta Modeling
Computer Assistance

Paul Emery

Joe

Don't take Todd too seriously. He does the best he can.

George Rebane

RussS 1020pm - what do you think my 1002pm is based on? Have you read what they consider to be modeling report?

Todd Juvinall

Golly Joe Smith, all I asked was some links to back up your allegations and you went personal. You and Paul Emery are cut from the same cloth. All yap no proof. I have to dumb down my questions for you but it still did not work. Sheesh!

Paul Emery

George

Can we find something we have common agreement about.

First can we agree that there is a tipping point on water diversion that can cause irreparable harm to property and the environment.

Second can we agree that we need to come up with a way of determining that place, much like the Canarie in the mine did for oxygen depletion.


Paul Emery

Don B
I don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Try again using a different translation.

Russ Steele

George@10:30

No I did not read the report or look at any of the files they called models. I will accept your evaluation, they are models in name only, not in function.

George Rebane

PaulE 1039pm – “Irreparable harm” is a dicey concept given the massive climate changes in the earth’s 5B+ year history, and the significant changes in the last millions then thousands of years. As RussS’ 216pm pointed out, the salinity of the Sac delta has had large variations, way more than now contemplated, and has “recovered” nicely if we consider its recent history. But in principle we can say that there undoubtedly are salinity levels that will significantly change delta’s ecosystem for, say, the next century or two, until they recede or new salt tolerant critters and plants establish themselves.

The problem is that we don’t know those salinity levels. The complexity of the delta yields similar salinity levels as does the earth atmosphere with respect to what is quoted as ‘earth’s temperature’. Neither systems have a single place where you can stick a sensor and read its salinity or temp output that will then be accepted as ‘the’ salinity level or ‘the’ temperature. To find ‘the’ publishable reading that can be used by policy makers, you need to take readings all over the place and then put them into an algorithm (formula) that then spits out a single number. Devising such an algo is a complex technical, and even more complex political undertaking.

But even if that is accomplished for the delta, you still don’t know the relationship of such a reading to the ‘health of the delta’ (assuming such health is defined as stable flora and fauna population levels). You don’t know how to use these as water diversion policy canary, the data is not there, and according to the California Water Resources Board, neither are the working models. When you go to their site, you see that it’s desperation time in the realm of delta water flow modeling, both its current status and the yet to be defined and funded development program.

My best guess, according to CWRB documents, is that current claims about fish comfort and salinity levels have been generated by rump models that are neither correct, comprehensive, or validated. But they have been successfully sold to desperate, ignorant, and agenda driven politicians in Sacramento. In sum, there is no there there as far the proper understanding of the science and control technology required to make rational decisions. We are working in the realm of pure politics.

Even worse, the CWRB most likely does not have the technical or managerial staff to define and manage a development program that can bring a model such as CalSim II, their current poster child, to fruition. That requires a large systems house like SAIC or Lockheed/Martin to pull off.
H/T to Russ for his input on historical salinity levels and finding the CWRB link. Unfortunately the layman is in no position to understand the modeling status documents published by CWRB.

So Paul, we are flying blind as far as delta water diversion policy is concerned, and making diversion policy decisions now is something that seems wise only to the state’s innumerates who mostly make up the ‘But we gotta do something!’ crowd. Nevertheless those are modus operandi of agencies who have pissed away public funds for decades and don't dare admit that they still don't know what they claim.

Scott Obermuller

In all of this swell discussion of salt water intrusion and irreparable harm, let's remember there were times past before those terrible dams went up and the white man started messing with the water system that there were droughts of far more epic proportions than any that we've seen. The rivers certainly went dry, there was salt water intrusion, the fishies had no where to go and spawn and every body and every thing died. Yet when the Spanish showed up, everything was hunky dory. For some reason, a lot of folks think that what the conditions are in say 1860, are the conditions that must be maintained at all costs forever. At least let's not kid ourselves that we are acting on behalf of Ma Earth. We are trying to UN-naturally maintain conditions we have become accustomed to for our own economic and recreational well being. The earth and all of God's creatures ('cept us) just don't care one whit.

Paul Emery

So George to summarize your view it's pump away water to the South and see what happens. Do you believe So Cal has a Right to the water from the North State? Also is water a Commons and how should it be regulated for best use for all?

George Rebane

ScottO 854am - Thanks for reviving the observation that things have been changing for eons, and the Left's sophomoric desire to define a point in time as a perfection to be maintained is more than foolish. But raising such 'environmental protections' is a very handy vehicle with which to impose a command and control society, which after all is their raison d'etre.

PaulE 955am - Yes indeed, don't start fixing something about which you have no idea how it works. It's like putting a chimpanzee into the cockpit of a 747 at 30K feet. That doesn't mean that you stop monitoring and developing better means to monitor and control (i.e. models and measurments).

I don't think that soCal's draw on norCal's water comes under the concept of rights (q.v.). It's a matter of existing contract law, and politics since most of the state's population lives south of the Tehachapies. And yes, riparian water has been acknowledged as a commons for millennia. Water flows across jurisdictional boundaries have been held sacrosanct - upstream pollution, diversion, or damming such flows have been considered as an act of war among sovereign states. In the jurisdiction of California, water is directed to where it will buy the most votes.

Bill  Tozer

X
https://www.facebook.com/PatriotPost/photos/a.82108390913.80726.51560645913/10152821979860914/?type=1&theater

Bill  Tozer

Tap water from the ocean. Not cheap.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/23/southern-california-city-hopes-pacific-ocean-can-increase-water-supply/

The dirt man

Pulling salt as well other materials from Sea Water to make it potable, or useful for irrigation is a very expensive proposition as even the water that comes down from the Sierra's has trace amounts of salts within, and these salts have already made thousands of acres in the San Joaquin valley unproductive.

The only way to return these lands to useful production is to leach these salts to a area below the root zones of the desired crops, which takes lots and lots of very clean pure water (which is currently non-existent other than the rains), and even that requires the removal, and disposal of this "dirty" water.....

Rich

Walt

Just which side of the fence has been yapping about tearing down dams? (that would be water storage) ECO nuts please take one step forward. The same crazies have done their damnedest
to stop any new water storage, all in the name of "pretty". ( wild and scenic around these parts) Not one hippie ( ECO loon) has yet to tell me(us) how to eat or drink "pretty".

Well HI,, "Dirt man",, What's your story? Ya' a Brother ditch digger? ( there is no way but up for our kind)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad