California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

«‹›957 »

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Pohl posted:

Ag is the problem, what you are talking about is akin to people bitching about Al Gore for his energy use.
What you are talking about is an issue that needs addressed, it is not the problem.

... or you can re-read what I said.

Citizen awareness aside, mining and power are also huge consumers (or contaminators in the case of mining/drilling) of water, and this needs to change as quickly as possible. (Not to mention all the other poisons those industries dump on us, and the water they contaminate in addition to the water they use.)

http://www.sswm.info/category/implementation-tools/water-use/hardware/optimisation-water-use-industry/reduce-water-consum

quote:

As of 1999, industrial water use accounted for 5-10% of global freshwater withdrawals. The majority of all industrial water use is from the cooling of power plants.

Public supply use is still huge, and changing peoples attitude on this was the point of my post you misunderstood.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1405/

quote:

Irrigation withdrawals were 115 Bgal/d in 2010 and represented the lowest levels since before 1965. Irrigation withdrawals, all freshwater, accounted for 38 percent of total freshwater withdrawals for all uses, or 61 percent of total freshwater withdrawals for all uses excluding thermoelectric power. Surface-water withdrawals (65.9 Bgal/d) accounted for 57 percent of the total irrigation withdrawals, or about 12 percent less than in 2005. Groundwater withdrawals were 49.5 Bgal/d in 2010, about 6 percent less than in 2005. About 62,400 thousand acres were irrigated in 2010, an increase from 2005 of about 950 thousand acres (1.5 percent). The number of acres irrigated using sprinkler and microirrigation systems continued to increase and accounted for 58 percent of the total irrigated lands in 2010.

Public-supply withdrawals in 2010 were 42.0 Bgal/d, or 5 percent less than in 2005, and represented the first declines in public-supply withdrawals since the 5-year reporting began in 1950. Total population in the United States increased from 300.7 million people in 2005 to 313.0 million people in 2010, an increase of 4 percent. Public-supply withdrawals accounted for 14 percent of the total freshwater withdrawals for all uses and 22 percent of freshwater withdrawals for all uses excluding thermoelectric power. The number of people that received potable water from public-supply facilities in 2010 was 268 million, or about 86 percent of the total U.S. population. This percentage was unchanged from 2005. Self-supplied domestic withdrawals were 3.60 Bgal/d, or 3 percent less than in 2005. More than 98 percent of the self-supplied domestic withdrawals were from groundwater sources.

Self-supplied industrial withdrawals were 15.9 Bgal/d in 2010, a 12 percent decline from 2005, and continued the downward trend since the peak of 47 Bgal/d in 1970. Total self-supplied industrial withdrawals were 4 percent of total withdrawals for all uses and 8 percent of total withdrawals for all uses excluding thermoelectric power. Most of the total self-supplied industrial withdrawals were from surface-water sources (82 percent), and nearly all (93 percent) of those surface-water withdrawals were from freshwater sources. Nearly all of the groundwater withdrawals for self-supplied industrial use (98 percent) were from freshwater sources.

Total aquaculture withdrawals were 9.42 Bgal/d in 2010, or 7 percent more than in 2005, and surface water was the primary source (81 percent). Most of the surface-water withdrawals occurred at facilities that operated flowthrough raceways, which returned the water to the source directly after use. Aquaculture withdrawals accounted for 3 percent of the total withdrawals for all uses and 5 percent of the total withdrawals for all uses excluding thermoelectric.

Total mining withdrawals in 2010 were 5.32 Bgal/d, or about 1 percent of total withdrawals from all uses and 3 percent of total withdrawals from all uses excluding thermoelectric. Mining withdrawals accounted for the largest percentage increase (39 percent) in water use between 2005 and 2010 among all the categories. Groundwater withdrawals accounted for 73 percent of the total mining withdrawals, and the majority of the groundwater was saline (71 percent). The majority (80 percent) of surface-water withdrawals for mining was freshwater.

Livestock withdrawals in 2010 were 2.00 Bgal/d, or 7 percent less than in 2005. All livestock withdrawals were from freshwater sources, mostly from groundwater (60 percent). Livestock withdrawals accounted for about 1 percent of total freshwater withdrawals for all uses excluding thermoelectric power.

Mining/drilling doesnt draw as much, but the contamination is needless and huge (and persistent).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_mining#Water_pollution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_mining#Aquatic_organisms

Industry in general is still just profit-vs-costing its way into killing us all.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/SCHROEBJ/

quote:

It is the Core countries that use the majority of freshwater in industry, and the United States leads the way. It is astounding if one thinks how much water is consumed by industry. It is predicted to represent 24% of the total freshwater withdrawal worldwide by 2025.

# ? Mar 19, 2015 21:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 10:25

b0lt: Apr 29, 2005

FRINGE posted:

... or you can re-read what I said.

Citizen awareness aside, mining and power are also huge consumers (or contaminators in the case of mining/drilling) of water, and this needs to change as quickly as possible. (Not to mention all the other poisons those industries dump on us, and the water they contaminate in addition to the water they use.)

http://www.sswm.info/category/implementation-tools/water-use/hardware/optimisation-water-use-industry/reduce-water-consum

Public supply use is still huge, and changing peoples attitude on this was the point of my post you misunderstood.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1405/

These numbers are covering the entire country, which is completely irrelevant in the context of "california is running out of water".

# ? Mar 19, 2015 21:55

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

b0lt posted:

These numbers are covering the entire country, which is completely irrelevant in the context of "california is running out of water".

Fair enough. I guess its not an issue.

# ? Mar 19, 2015 22:53

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Another global one that can be ignored, but some people are following the water issue so oh well.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/03/groundwater-pumping-sea-level-rise

quote:

We're Pumping So Much Groundwater That It's Causing the Oceans to Rise

... So much water is being pumped out of the ground worldwide that it is contributing to global sea level rise, a phenomenon tied largely to warming temperatures and climate change.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 00:59

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

FRINGE posted:

Another global one that can be ignored, but some people are following the water issue so oh well.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/03/groundwater-pumping-sea-level-rise

Obviously the solution is to reduce natural flows to the ocean :v:

# ? Mar 20, 2015 01:11

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

If we're pumping out literally so much groundwater that it is going to cause up to 7 percent raise in ocean levels, how will it affect ocean acidity? I expect the effect on marine wildlife to be quite devastating.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 01:19

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

enraged_camel posted:

If we're pumping out literally so much groundwater that it is going to cause up to 7 percent raise in ocean levels, how will it affect ocean acidity? I expect the effect on marine wildlife to be quite devastating.

7 percent of overall sea level rise.

As far as acidity ... no idea. My first thought is that industrial dumping, rising carbon, various plastic particles, etc etc will be balancing against the influx of (used/contaminated) groundwater.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#Mechanism

I remember there being some AtmoSci and Ocean goons around that could add legit opinions.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 01:28

Bizarro Watt: May 30, 2010; My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.

I would imagine that the effect on acidity would be negligible. Atmospheric CO2 is going to play a much larger role in future changes in ocean pH.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 01:31

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Can we get rid of the proposition system yet?
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article15394181.html#/tabPane=tabs-b0710947-1-2

# ? Mar 20, 2015 03:16

SlimGoodbody: Oct 20, 2003

nm posted:

Can we get rid of the proposition system yet?
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article15394181.html#/tabPane=tabs-b0710947-1-2

How is there no release valve for this. It's so nakedly stupid and unconstitutional.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 05:52

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

SlimGoodbody posted:

How is there no release valve for this. It's so nakedly stupid and unconstitutional.

Well, 51% of the voters aren't going to vote for it, so that kinda is.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 06:06

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

nm posted:

Well, 51% of the voters aren't going to vote for it, so that kinda is.

It will probably not even make it too the ballot.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 06:10

SlimGoodbody: Oct 20, 2003

But like, isn't there some law that says "if your proposition calls for the murder of innocents, it is immediately invalid and can progress no further" or something??

# ? Mar 20, 2015 06:40

Shbobdb: Dec 16, 2010; by Reene

The whole "due process" part of the Constitution was basically there to prevent this style of star court justice.

But if it were to pass, California could spend some time killing gays until a superior court filed an injunction to stop it. And maybe it could keep going on during the injunction. After that, it is a legal battle all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Thankfully, we could also create a proposition HH88 where we nullify the legal status of those executions, making them murders.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 08:02

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Shbobdb posted:

The whole "due process" part of the Constitution was basically there to prevent this style of star court justice.

But if it were to pass, California could spend some time killing gays until a superior court filed an injunction to stop it. And maybe it could keep going on during the injunction. After that, it is a legal battle all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Thankfully, we could also create a proposition HH88 where we nullify the legal status of those executions, making them murders.

If this somehow passed (which it won't), you'd see an emergency injunction issued 2 seconds after the results were finalized. Also, if somehow someone did get murdered, this might give them immunity to CA law (and you couldn't fix that retroactively), but the feds could do whatever the gently caress they pleased.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 08:32

Shbobdb: Dec 16, 2010; by Reene

I dunno. We've already seen my scenario play out once in recent memory.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 08:33

CopperHound: Feb 14, 2012

I kind of want to see that on the ballot right next to a proposition to do away with the initiative process.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 08:38

Pohl: Jan 28, 2005; In the future, please post shit with the sole purpose of antagonizing the person running this site. Thank you.

FRINGE posted:

... or you can re-read what I said.

Public supply use is still huge, and changing peoples attitude on this was the point of my post you misunderstood.

The only thing that public perception and action is going to do is force AG to use less water. Sure, people as individuals can use less water, we already are. In the big picture, it doesn't matter how much households cut their water usage because they aren't the ones using the majority of the water. Sure, every drop counts but nagging people to take one less shower a week or whatever is not going to do jack poo poo. Every drop of water that consumers save is just going to used by AG until we actually face the inevitable. What we have now is a cycle where we blame the average population, force restrictions on their water use, and then some rear end in a top hat pumps a ton of water to grow almonds. We don't need almonds, we like them, but we sure as hell don't need them. I thought you were a left wing radical, why are you blaming average people for systematic problems?

FRINGE posted:

Another global one that can be ignored, but some people are following the water issue so oh well.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/03/groundwater-pumping-sea-level-rise

That is really loving stupid. I don't even know what to say because it is so drat stupid.

Pohl fucked around with this message at 10:06 on Mar 20, 2015

# ? Mar 20, 2015 10:02

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Pohl posted:

The only thing that public perception and action is going to do is force AG to use less water. Sure, people as individuals can use less water, we already are. In the big picture, it doesn't matter how much households cut their water usage because they aren't the ones using the majority of the water. Sure, every drop counts but nagging people to take one less shower a week or whatever is not going to do jack poo poo. Every drop of water that consumers save is just going to used by AG until we actually face the inevitable. What we have now is a cycle where we blame the average population, force restrictions on their water use, and then some rear end in a top hat pumps a ton of water to grow almonds. We don't need almonds, we like them, but we sure as hell don't need them. I thought you were a left wing radical, why are you blaming average people for systematic problems?

Yeah the easiest way to get self-absorbed people to change their outlook is to say: "dont worry someone else needs to pay attention".

"Average people" dont need 365 days of green grass in a mega-drought. Fining them for this affectation-as-need is one way to get the issue to sink in.

As a lawn anecdote: the biggest offender I personally ran into was some mega-cemetary in OC that I had a job at. One of the people that worked there was bragging about the grass and millions of gallons of water they pumped out of the wells they dug to make sure the grass was always perfect green.

Pohl posted:

That is really loving stupid. I don't even know what to say because it is so drat stupid.

Water sure is stupid! Also uninteresting!

# ? Mar 20, 2015 16:24

e_angst: Sep 20, 2001; by exmarx

FRINGE posted:

"Average people" dont need 365 days of green grass in a mega-drought. Fining them for this affectation-as-need is one way to get the issue to sink in.

Average people don't need almonds grown during a mega-drought, either. And every single lawn in the state dying off or being xeriscaped would barely save a fraction of the water that is being wasted growing a luxury crop that exists solely to boost the profits of corporate agriculture.

I get it, you want to punish suburban assholes. I do too, it's a good instinct to have. But it isn't going to come anywhere close to fixing the actual problem. In fact, it's a major distraction from the real source of the problem.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 16:43

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

e_angst posted:

I get it, you want to punish suburban assholes. I do too, it's a good instinct to have. But it isn't going to come anywhere close to fixing the actual problem. In fact, it's a major distraction from the real source of the problem.

No, I want the suburban assholes to be inconvenienced enough that they suddenly start believing that this is "a real thing".

Without them getting anything changed in CA is an even more difficult battle.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 17:44

hell astro course: Dec 10, 2009; pizza sucks

e_angst posted:

Average people don't need almonds grown during a mega-drought, either. And every single lawn in the state dying off or being xeriscaped would barely save a fraction of the water that is being wasted growing a luxury crop that exists solely to boost the profits of corporate agriculture.

I get it, you want to punish suburban assholes. I do too, it's a good instinct to have. But it isn't going to come anywhere close to fixing the actual problem. In fact, it's a major distraction from the real source of the problem.

I help run a local community garden, and we've been getting loads of weird suggestions on how to conserve water "bring in your bath water to help water the plants" (What bath water?) etc. I understand people want to make a difference, but every conversation seems to go "Agriculture uses the vast majority of water... now here are 3 ways for you to avoid drinking tap water at restaurants." I don't see much in the way of sculpted lawns, but it feels like everyone is going to be tearing everyone apart over petty water crimes, instead of, I don't know, passing reasonable regulations and providing subsidies to get Ag to use significantly less water.

I guess most of us city folk are so far removed from Ag it barely exists in our minds. I have no idea what's going on out there either, is it mostly big corporations? local farmers? I barely understand how water rights work in California. These conversations would be a lot more useful, instead we basically get op ed buzzfeed pieces telling us not to shower.

There seems to be such a 'those fuckers" mentality in politics in here in general, while the root of the problem is ignored. It's pretty depressing.

Edit: Cross Posting this from the Politoon thread.. We've been getting it wrong the entire time.

hell astro course fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Mar 20, 2015

# ? Mar 20, 2015 18:14

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

Space-Bird posted:

I help run a local community garden, and we've been getting loads of weird suggestions on how to conserve water "bring in your bath water to help water the plants" (What bath water?) etc. I understand people want to make a difference, but every conversation seems to go "Agriculture uses the vast majority of water... now here are 3 ways for you to avoid drinking tap water at restaurants." I don't see much in the way of sculpted lawns, but it feels like everyone is going to be tearing everyone apart over petty water crimes, instead of, I don't know, passing reasonable regulations and providing subsidies to get Ag to use significantly less water.

I guess most of us city folk are so far removed from Ag it barely exists in our minds. I have no idea what's going on out there either, is it mostly big corporations? local farmers? I barely understand how water rights work in California. These conversations would be a lot more useful, instead we basically get op ed buzzfeed pieces telling us not to shower.

There seems to be such a 'those fuckers" mentality in politics in here in general, while the root of the problem is ignored. It's pretty depressing.

Edit: Cross Posting this from the Politoon thread.. We've been getting it wrong the entire time.

NSFWCorp did a piece on this a few years ago; look for "Oligarch Valley", you can find it on Kindle for a few bucks.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 18:26

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Space-Bird posted:

I guess most of us city folk are so far removed from Ag it barely exists in our minds. I have no idea what's going on out there either, is it mostly big corporations? local farmers? I barely understand how water rights work in California. These conversations would be a lot more useful, instead we basically get op ed buzzfeed pieces telling us not to shower.

Theres lots of info laying around. Getting anyone to pay attention is hard.

Water Use in California
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108

http://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/2010-california-water-use.html
"MORE WATER is used each day for IRRIGATION than any other water use category"
"EACH CALIFORNIAN uses an average of 181 GALLONS of water EACH DAY"

quote:

Withdrawals by Category

38 billion gallons of water withdrawals per day were distributed among 8 categories:

Irrigation: 60.7% (23,056 million gallons per day)
Thermoelectric power generation: 17.4% (6,601 million gallons per day)
Public supply: 16.6% (6,307 million gallons per day). Average daily gross per capita use was 181 gallons (total Public Supply withdrawals divided by population served).
Aquaculture: 2.6% (973 million gallons per day)
Industrial: 1.0% (400 million gallons per day)
Mining: 0.7% (272 million gallons per day)
Livestock: 0.5% (188 million gallons per day)
Self-supply domestic: 0.5% (172 million gallons per day). Average daily per capita use was 69 gallons.

http://www.mullerranch.com/making_news/sacbee_drip_2_2014.html

quote:

Amid one of the worst droughts in state history, environmental advocates say farms are where the big gains in water conservation will come from, not in the residential and commercial sectors. That is because farms use 62 to 75 percent of all the water diverted in California for human purposes, depending on how that consumption is measured.

Broader adoption of solutions such as drip irrigation on farms, they say, could go a long way to stretch the state�s water supplies.

�There are still a lot of farms that are using very inefficient forms of irrigation, where you just basically release the water onto your field,� said Kari Hamerschlag, a senior agriculture analyst at Environmental Working Group in Oakland. �There should be some policy that holds farms to a higher standard.�

...

One barrier to drip conversions is cost: $1,000 to $3,000 per acre to buy and install drip lines, filters, pumps and controllers. It saves money on water, but often the investment can only be justified if it also increases crop yields, Hale said.

...

Just six years ago, Hurley said, none of the farmers he served used drip. Now about 35 percent do. One reason is that tomato canneries prefer drip-irrigated tomatoes, because the yields per acre are better and the quality of the tomato is more consistent.

Hurley estimates drip irrigation has cut water use in his service area by 40 to 60 percent. As a result, the canal company now has surplus water, which it sells to neighboring farmers and irrigation districts. This has helped its bottom line and created a regional benefit, effectively allowing the same amount of water to serve more farms.

At a federal level, its the same old "lots of money for bombs, no money for anything else" issue.

quote:

To bridge that gap, the federal government has paid out $100 million in grants over the past five years to help California farmers convert. These grants, part of the federal farm bill, typically pay 50 percent of a farmer�s cost.

... and there are some other issues.

quote:

But there are other barriers. One is that many irrigation districts are not equipped to serve drip irrigation. Most farm water is not delivered in pressurized pipes, the way drinking water is distributed to homes. Instead, most districts merely open a valve or gate to divert surface water into a gravity-flow canal or ditch that leads to a particular farm.

Also, irrigation districts have historically delivered water on long schedules to serve farms that use flood irrigation. This means a farmer might get water delivered only once a week, or even once every two weeks, for an occasional deep soak.

This doesn�t work for drip irrigation, where the water must be pressurized and needs to be delivered more often, albeit in lower volumes.

�It�s a heck of a scheduling strategy for many irrigation districts,� Johnson said.

When an irrigation district can�t provide the required flexibility and pressure, many farmers turn instead to their own groundwater wells. They have control over this supply and can pressurize it with a relatively small pump. But this is one of drip irrigation�s downsides: it can worsen groundwater depletion.

Drip also contributes little toward restoring groundwater volumes. With flood irrigation, a lot of water naturally soaks back into the aquifer, where it can be pumped out later.

�When you tighten the irrigation efficiency in the Central Valley, most of what you�re doing is reducing recharge to groundwater,� said Jay Lund, director of the Center for Watershed Sciences at UC Davis. �So you have a high technical efficiency on your farm and have not improved the efficiency of the Valley.�

# ? Mar 20, 2015 18:46

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

FRINGE posted:

Theres lots of info laying around. Getting anyone to pay attention is hard.

Yeah, because attention is finite and there's a thousand other things competing for it. And for something that is as basic (in the first world) as water, most people won't care unless it starts to seriously and visibly starts affecting them. For example, if they turn on their taps one morning and no water comes out, and they call the utility service and the utility service goes, "sorry, all the water is being used to grow almonds in Central Valley".... THEN you might see some serious action to fix the issues at a fundamental (i.e. water rights) level.

As things stand though, nothing will be done. Heck, so many people unironically say things like, "I love California, the weather has been so nice lately!!!" and post pictures on Facebook with caption "another beautiful sunny day at the beach, I hope the weather stays like this!" you know the situation is hopeless.

Slow News Day fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Mar 20, 2015

# ? Mar 20, 2015 18:55

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

All the natives I know are like "ugh, it's too loving hot for this time of the year. Give me rain, please!"

# ? Mar 20, 2015 18:57

Senf: Nov 12, 2006

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

All the natives I know are like "ugh, it's too loving hot for this time of the year. Give me rain, please!"

Yeah, everyone I know can't stand the weather lately and practically throws a party when we get some rain. That week-long rain "storm" the Bay Area had a couple months ago was amazing while it lasted.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 19:22

Proust Malone: Apr 4, 2008

A snapshot of drought:

# ? Mar 20, 2015 19:42

Bip Roberts: Mar 29, 2005

Ron Jeremy posted:

A snapshot of drought:

Looks like some beautiful August weather in the high Sierra.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 19:47

Pervis: Jan 12, 2001; YOSPOS

Bip Roberts posted:

Looks like some beautiful August weather in the high Sierra.

Yeah, that's a really bleak picture for this time of year. Time for another 6 months straight of summer.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 19:57

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

Enigma89 posted:

No talk about our Dear UC President?

�We Don�t Have To Listen To This Crap� when the UC Regents meeting got crashed by student protesters.

Not terribly surprising, sadly.

I suppose organizing all the UC students to not pay their next bills would be ... difficult.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 20:36

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

Bizarro Watt posted:

I would imagine that the effect on acidity would be negligible. Atmospheric CO2 is going to play a much larger role in future changes in ocean pH.

You're correct, ocean pH is mostly set by atmospheric CO2 concentration. Surface waters will equilibrate with atmospheric CO2 at a rate on the order of months to a couple years; sea level rise is going to occur on much longer timescales.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 21:44

Sydin: Oct 29, 2011; Another spring commute

Ron Jeremy posted:

A snapshot of drought:

This is the other issue: even if we managed to dramatically cut Ag's use of water, it doesn't really change the fact that California is staring down the barrel of an incredibly awful dry period, which could very well continue on for quite some time. It would certainly buy us more time, and it's the right thing to do regardless, but it's not going to solve all our issues if this poo poo keeps up.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 21:53

ProperGanderPusher: Jan 13, 2012

One thing I keep running into, usually with people who are over sixty, is a certain romanticization of rural life and the idea that it is unfair it is to deprive farmers of their water. In their minds, the almond and rice farmers are still "honest country folks" in overalls and straw hats who "put food on our tables" and they need every drop they ask for. I can't tell them anything to the contrary because they immediate dismiss it as urban elitist liberal claptrap.

I can't help but wonder if this is a widespread impression among certain people whose only exposure to farming was visiting their grandpappy's farm in the 40s or talking with the hobbyists selling produce from their summer home gardens at farmer's markets.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 22:26

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

ProperGanderPusher posted:

One thing I keep running into, usually with people who are over sixty, is a certain romanticization of rural life and the idea that it is unfair it is to deprive farmers of their water. In their minds, the almond and rice farmers are still "honest country folks" in overalls and straw hats who "put food on our tables" and they need every drop they ask for. I can't tell them anything to the contrary because they immediate dismiss it as urban elitist liberal claptrap.

I can't help but wonder if this is a widespread impression among certain people whose only exposure to farming was visiting their grandpappy's farm in the 40s or talking with the hobbyists selling produce from their summer home gardens at farmer's markets.

The rice barons (yes, that is their title up north) don't need much help. I am worried about the laborers who do all the work though if the farms stop planting.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't have to conserve better though.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 22:52

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

ProperGanderPusher posted:

One thing I keep running into, usually with people who are over sixty, is a certain romanticization of rural life and the idea that it is unfair it is to deprive farmers of their water. In their minds, the almond and rice farmers are still "honest country folks" in overalls and straw hats who "put food on our tables" and they need every drop they ask for. I can't tell them anything to the contrary because they immediate dismiss it as urban elitist liberal claptrap.

I can't help but wonder if this is a widespread impression among certain people whose only exposure to farming was visiting their grandpappy's farm in the 40s or talking with the hobbyists selling produce from their summer home gardens at farmer's markets.

It's a foundation-stone of our entire national culture.

wikipedia posted:

Jeffersonian democracy (sometimes capitalized), named after its advocate Thomas Jefferson, was one of two dominant political outlooks and movements in the United States from the 1790s to the 1820s. The term was commonly used to refer to the Republican Party which Jefferson founded in opposition to the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton. The Jeffersonians believed in a republic, as form of government, and equality of political opportunity, with a priority for the "yeoman farmer", "planters" and the "plain folk". They were antagonistic to the aristocratic elitism of merchants, bankers and manufacturers, distrusted factory workers, and were on the watch for supporters of the dreaded British system of government. Above all, the Jeffersonians were devoted to the principles of Republicanism, especially civic duty and opposition to privilege, aristocracy and corruption. Jeffersonian democracy persisted as an element of the Democratic Party into the early 20th century, as exemplified by William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925).[1]

Jeffersonian Idealism is about how the ideal organization of society is as a yeomanry of landholding gentlemen-farmers, living close to the land and in touch with God, as opposed to all that rot about cities and factories and banks and industry. It's dying very, very hard, but it is dying. You can also see echoes of it in the cultural fondness for the simple, honest virtues of small-town life.

This impulse was also big in fascist and quasi-fascist 20th century movements as well - they blamed everything on corrupt culture, foreign ideas, cities as melting pots full of dangerous new ideas and decadent behavior, etc. etc.

tl;dr - cities are full of Jews and we know what's up with that.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 22:55

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

NSFWCorp did a piece on this a few years ago; look for "Oligarch Valley", you can find it on Kindle for a few bucks.

For some reason private for profit horrible owners don't make the best stewards of environmental resources

# ? Mar 20, 2015 22:57

FCKGW: May 21, 2006

ProperGanderPusher posted:

One thing I keep running into, usually with people who are over sixty, is a certain romanticization of rural life and the idea that it is unfair it is to deprive farmers of their water. In their minds, the almond and rice farmers are still "honest country folks" in overalls and straw hats who "put food on our tables" and they need every drop they ask for. I can't tell them anything to the contrary because they immediate dismiss it as urban elitist liberal claptrap.

I can't help but wonder if this is a widespread impression among certain people whose only exposure to farming was visiting their grandpappy's farm in the 40s or talking with the hobbyists selling produce from their summer home gardens at farmer's markets.

From the Super Bowl 2 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S87BhEJX_bg

So absolutely, yes.

# ? Mar 20, 2015 23:09

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

Fight fire with fire.

# ? Mar 23, 2015 19:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 10:25

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

ComradeCosmobot posted:

Fight fire with fire.

I hope this actually gets on the ballot, I'd vote for it.

# ? Mar 23, 2015 19:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

«‹›957 »