We’ve reported here about the severe drought in California; the worst in decades. It is believed to be partially man-made because of California’s extreme environmental regulations that are literally flushing fresh water out to sea. Now, a new report by CNS News reveals the shocking reason for the drought. Since California Democratic Governor Jerry Brown imposed water restrictions on the state’s residents on April 1, people have suddenly become interested in what government officials have described as “one of the most severe droughts on record.” The truth, Grove said, is that the Endangered Species Act and its effort to protect the tiny delta smelt has taken essential water away from farmers. That’s right, the worst drought in a century in California is because environmentalists want to be sure a 3 inch fish – the Delta Smelt – has enough water to swim in. “All in all, California farmers fallowed about 500,000 acres of land this year,” reported by the WSJ in June 2014. “But here’s the thing: much of this land could have been productive had the state stored up more water from wet years and not flushed 800,000 acre-feet into the San Francisco Bay last winter and an additional 445,000 acre-feet this spring to safeguard the endangered delta smelt.” “That’s enough for roughly three million households to live on and to irrigate 600,000 acres of land,” the WSJ reported. According to the University of California-Davis, this represents the “greatest water loss ever seen” for California agriculture and resulted in the loss of 17,000 seasonal and part-time jobs. “Today’s drought I think is more politically driven than weather-related,” Starrh said, and added that he doesn’t remember these kinds of problems until Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973. “Until that happened we were fine,” Starrh said. “We got through all our droughts with no issues.” http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u...his-fish-video http://www.wsj.com/articles/californ...ght-1428271308 During normal years, the state should replenish reservoirs. However, environmental regulations require that about 4.4 million acre-feet of water—enough to sustain 4.4 million families and irrigate one million acres of farmland—be diverted to ecological purposes. Even in dry years, hundreds of thousands of acre feet of runoff are flushed into San Francisco Bay to protect fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. During the last two winters amid the drought, regulators let more than 2.6 million acre-feet out into the bay. The reason: California lacked storage capacity north of the delta, and environmental rules restrict water pumping to reservoirs south. After heavy rains doused northern California this February, the State Water Resources Control Board dissipated tens of thousands of more acre-feet. Every smelt matters. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/16...-by-misguided/ The critics say California gets plenty of water to meet its needs, if it were only managed properly. More than half of California’s surface water flows from the Sierra Nevada mountains in the east down to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in Northern California. Much of the mountain runoff is managed by two of the world’s largest water storage and transport systems – the federal Central Valley Project and California's State Water Project. Each is a system of dams, reservoirs and distribution systems designed to send water to cities, towns and farms throughout the state. But the vast majority of the state’s 1,400 dams and reservoirs, in the two massive systems and smaller ones that supply southern California, were built well before the 1980s. Environmentalists have since stopped the construction of water storage and delivery systems through legal and political actions. They have also fought to ensure that captured water is released into streams and the ocean -- rather than the water delivery system -- in order to boost fish populations and dilute the salinity of the delta. “Droughts are nothing new in California, but right now, 70 percent of California's rainfall washes out to sea because liberals have prevented the construction of a single new reservoir or a single new water conveyance system over decades, during a period in which California’s population has doubled,” said Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett Packard and likely GOP presidential candidate. “This is the classic case of liberals being willing to sacrifice other people's lives and livelihoods at the altar of their ideology.” Releasing the water is supposed to save the endangered fish population, including the Delta Smelt, Longfin Smelt, four runs of Chinook Salmon, the Steelhead, Green and White Sturgeon, Splittail and the Sacramento hitch, but so far the fish population has decreased, according to experts. A state survey in March found just 6 Delta Smelt – four females and two males – prompting wildlife experts to estimate the species' population has dropped to 5,000 or fewer from the millions in the last 40 years. "Prepare for the extinction of the Delta Smelt in the wild,” UC Davis fish biologist Peter Moyle said. “The population today may be too low to sustain itself,” Moyle said. “Fish ready to spawn have to find one another in a big area. If spawning is successful, there have to be enough eggs and larvae that some individuals survive to become the next generation of spawners.” Jim Burling of the Pacific Legal Foundation said while water diversions have not helped endangered fish populations, the policies are devastating to people, produce and the economy. “The environmental groups did not expect to run everyone out of water, but they got greedy, shut down the whole system, and ran the whole damned state dry,” Nunes said. The environmental movement went to court to stop most new dam construction, according to Victor Davis Hanson, a Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, including the Sites Reservoir; the Los Banos Grandes facility; and the Temperance Flat Reservoir. The Klamath River diversion project also was canceled in the 1970s, putting an end to the Aw Paw reservoir, potentially the state’s largest man-made reservoir with 15 million acre-feet of water, or enough to supply San Francisco for 30 years, Davis said. “California’s water-storage capacity would be nearly double what it is today had these plans come to fruition,” Davis said in a report. Environmentalists also diverted irrigation and municipal water from reservoirs and moved to freeze California’s water-storage resources at 1970s capacities, Davis said. Nunes introduced the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act of 2012 and co-sponsored the Sacramento-San Joaquin Emergency Water Delivery Act of 2014 to “restore water deliveries cut off by environmental lawsuits and federal regulation; streamline environmental regulatory processes to speed up 5,000,000 water reliability projects and transfers; expand the use of the Central Valley Project to allow water deliveries by non-federal sources; and end the effort to protect non-native species and instead focus on native species.” And all this for one fucking fish!! literally one fucking fish...
One tiny fish that is plentiful elsewhere. The ESA has been used and abused since it's inception back in the 70's. It has been used to decimate Oregon's previous #1 industry. It has become the best legal tool to lock up resources and stop anything from going forward.
CA has a "water problem" for many of the same reasons why it has a "revenue problem" - mismanagement and apathy by our .gov
Isn't this a TINY fraction of the water used compared to agriculture exports? To China even? I call Red Herring. Also the headline is nonsense. There's hardly been any rain for years in California. Record lows. Record high temperatures. Record low snowpacks for years on end. All those contribute heavily to low reservoir levels. To blame a small allocation set aside to save some environmental concern is ridiculous and dangerous rhetoric, yet it's spreading like cancer among right wingers. Too many people in CA, and way too many farmers taking the remaining water. Sure we need food, but to grow so much in the desert where no water naturally flows, when the majority of the food grown isn't even being consumed here, is a ridiculous misallocation of resources and will eventually (certainly!) lead to the downfall of the state. There's just no respect for water as a resource in this state. That's not even considering the millions of green lawns, artificial sidewalk foliage, 100+ million cars that are washed once a week/month, fracking uses and golf courses. We treat water like it's sunlight. More reservoirs would help store more water long term, but the real issue is consumption. If the farmers want to use 80% of the water, they should pay for 80% of the reservoirs. If they don't think that's fair or they won't turn a profit, then clearly the market doesn't make sense for farmers and the rest of the population would have to pickup the check... which is socialism / communism by definition.
You do realize that you're suggesting a California without any of the water or agriculture but with all of the humans, right?... Like I stated it is mismanagment problem with the state. The whole fish vs. farmer argument is completely irrelevant. But its great for drawing attention away from the fact that California completely and utterly sucks at water management. And the problem is way deeper than just constantly saying we need to stop giving water to farmers. Farmers have been paying 100% of their water bill but only have been allowed to use around 40% of the water they pay for if you did not know. The 40% number may not be accurate as it keeps changing but be assured the farmers do not get to use 100% of the water they are paying for. Because of this they have been forced to reduce work force size considerably. People keep preaching to stop exporting foods that we grow but that is how a business works. When you start to decrease in profit you start to cut down on spending. No spending equals bad economy. People have to realize someone has to make money in order to give money out. If you can understand that; Business makes money, business hires employees, business pays employees, employees put money back into the economy. Something this state is hugely lacking right now as a lot of businesses are moving out of state because of how piss poor this state is run. But maybe they want that? Maybe they want the majority of people on government aid? So we rely on them and have to bend to their will? Also from my understanding the last component of the Central Valley Project(water project) was completed in the 70's. Since then the population has doubled from 20 million to 40 million. Maybe we just have too many people... ? I am sure the state has taken this into account as well? Or not? Fuck it though right? Let keeps building that bullet train. We do not need any water desalination facilities or more reservoirs. Lets turn our back on the only reason why the this state even exist. Migrant farmers that came from Oklahoma to farm this land and build a better future for them and their families. ALSO:
No I'm not. If you got rid of say, 20% of the agriculture, you could have twice as many humans as we do now and they'd all have enough water. And like I stated it's not. Whatever management problem there is , it's a natural drought. And if 80% of the water is going to agriculture, 80%... that's the mismanagement. 80% 80% True but 80% is by far the lion's share of the water allocation, is it not? Does it matter if they paid 900%? There isn't enough water. The true cost is expotentially higher than what we're paying if you consider supply and demand, the TRUE cost of the water. They have to downsize their workforce because there's a drought (it's going to happen, read The Grapes of Wraith) and they overshot their bet. They bet on water being an unlimited resource. But there's not enough water for that many farming jobs, so some are going to have to find new jobs. It would be like if you sold tinfoil hats and started a giant tinfoil hat company. Then tinfoil became more expensive as supplies ran low, you have to lay people off. Eventually it might not be worth it for you to make tinfoil hats at all anymore. If the AG is really about the ECONOMY and not corporate and individual profits, why does the AG only bring in 2% of the GDP? 2% of the GDP, 80% of the water. It's simple economics - and that's VERY bad for the economy and completely utterly unsustainable. I understand you live in an area that's dependent on agriculture, but it's not sustainable to use 80% of the water in a drought and ask for more unless it's to feed the population solely. But it's not, it's to make profits. They need to find a new job. Government aid is what they're ON if we build reservoirs to keep them employed. Capiche? That's socialism. The people only use 20% of the water. So we could have 5x the number of people using the SAME water without ag. Of course we want/need some ag, so if it downsizes, we can continue to grow easily. So if the farmers need more water, they should foot the bill for reservoirs and new water projects. But they won't. Instead they'll push it onto everyone else so they can stay in business. AKA socialism. No and that's why we're in this mess and the farmers don't have enough water. The farmers have been a part of the state for 100+ years and have all the rights to most of the water. Sorry what does that have to do with the water problem? Red herring? Good, water desalination won't work anyway. Maybe true, but times change. Whatever reason they came here, you better explain to the remaining 95% of the state population, that brings in 98% of the money to the state, they they should be worried about fresh water resources, running water and toilets, so my almond farming friends can drive the latest sports cars and have bigger houses.
Things were unsustainable before the drought. Now that there is a drought, things are impossible. Shat wants to pilfer water from the PNW: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/william...er-campaign-for-water-pipeline-to-california/ The PNW and even the western arctic are way below normal for precip. It would be a good idea, if it weren't for that. We'd be simply bailing the Southland out, just to perpetuate the unsustainable habits that now exist.
That was my first thought too. The second thought was that I live along the I5 corridor. I really don't want a target that close to my house.
The first time I heard about the coming water crisis in California was like 4 or 5 years ago. There was rumblings in the hedge fund and resource speculation community about how water could become this great investment opportunity. I don't know who came up with the original investment thesis, but one guy who was early out of the gate talking about it was Michael Burry. He's one of the guys who correctly predicted the housing bubble in the US (something a lot of people claim to have done), and who figured out how to make money on that prediction (something very FEW people actually did). His story is documented in the book The Big Short by Michael Lewis (author of Moneyball). Anyways, post-2008 it came out that Burry had suddenly started acquiring almond farms in California, and everyone wondered wtf he was playing at. Well it turned out it had nothing to do with almonds, but with the water rights that almond farms owned. It became clear he was speculating that water would be repriced in the future, and that those rights would be massively more valuable than they currently were. And that appears to be playing out. It's much the same thing... a lot of people saw (or will claim to have seen) a water problem coming... very few will be clever enough to figure out a way to make money on it. Burry is one of those guys. Rick Rule is another major investor who has be very vocal about what the situation is and how he sees it playing out. He lays it out pretty well I think. Don't let the gimmicky, slapped together interview setting fool you, Rick Rule is a smart dude, humble and with a lot of experience (and success). Also, he manages billions of dollars, much of it his own.
That also happened in the Klamath basin. I read many of those article back in the recession onset. there's always going to be someone that'll turn lemons into pricey lemonade. To keep working until my last work day, I have to do similar thinking with the residential housing markets. So far, it's paid off nicely.
