|
FMguru posted:Nice work, fellow Californians Too bad that's just urban users, and the vast majority of water is used by agriculture.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 05:16 |
|
|
Not everyone was setting the best of examples though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Ag surface water supplies have been cut too, but ag has more flexibility to tap into backup sources, which might not necessarily be suitable as drinking water (groundwater or treated wastewater might be ok for irrigation but not drinking) or might have access to water that is legally unavailable to urban areas (Reclamation can't deliver water that contractually "belongs" to a Sacramento River Settlement Contractor to an urban area). Ag still uses a greater volume than municipalities, of course, but it's not unscathed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Last time I checked, ag was using so much underground water that the ground was literally sinking. So yeah, I refuse to have a shred of sympathy for agribusiness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
About that agricultural groundwater...
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Last time I checked, ag was using so much underground water that the ground was literally sinking. So yeah, I refuse to have a shred of sympathy for agribusiness. I hope you're doing your part to reduce the need for Agriculture in California by not eating Californian beef or dairy products.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Here's some info on two very important bills SB 350, Clean Energy and Pollution Act of 2015, would require 50% of all electricity to be generated by renewable energy by 2030. It just passed Appropriations and is going to the Assembly for a full vote. This vote will happen sometime before September 11th, as that is when the legislative period ends. So call your assemblymember! SB 3 would raise the state minimum wage to $13 an hour by 2017. It is currently being held up in Appropriations Assembly by Chairman Jimmy Gomez and Speaker Toni Atkins. If either of these are your assemblymember, please call their office in support. It is likely it won't be taken up again until January next year, so we have to time to lobby these Assemblymembers and also build support among the full Assembly. But if this is something you support we should start now. theblackw0lf fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Here's some info on two very important bills I'm seeing advertisements warning of an imminent driving-related apocalypse involving rationing and gas taxes. Is this what those are about? They're sponsored by the Western Petroleum Institute or something like that, so I've been working under the assumption that I should support whatever it is they're decrying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
LOL oil is super cheap right now. Moving to renewables has to do with electricity generation, why would they try to argue driving will get more expensive?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:LOL oil is super cheap right now. Moving to renewables has to do with electricity generation, why would they try to argue driving will get more expensive? IDK they might have been talking about something else. I'm sure I'll see another one of the ads soon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:IDK they might have been talking about something else. I'm sure I'll see another one of the ads soon. I'd bet they're about AB 32, California's climate law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I'm seeing advertisements warning of an imminent driving-related apocalypse involving rationing and gas taxes. Is this what those are about? They're sponsored by the Western Petroleum Institute or something like that, so I've been working under the assumption that I should support whatever it is they're decrying. I think part of the bill also involves reduction of petroleum, so yes there's a good chance that's what it's about. edit: this editorial by Sen. Mark Leno confirms it's about this bill http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/...twitter-premium quote:...It’s been nearly a decade since California adopted landmark climate and clean-energy policies that forced the state’s biggest emitters to pay for their pollution, while jump-starting our renewable-energy economy and improving air quality for our communities. Out-of-state oil companies bankrolled efforts to unsuccessfully repeal that benchmark climate law, AB32, claiming it was the equivalent to a “hidden gas tax” that never materialized. In fact, gas prices went down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Last time I checked, ag was using so much underground water that the ground was literally sinking. So yeah, I refuse to have a shred of sympathy for agribusiness. I'm sure you're doing your part to reduce reliance on California ag. Regardless, not all ground or groundwater is created equal. Places exist where the underlying aquifers are highly susceptible to groundwater recharge, and in those areas groundwater being pumped today could well be groundwater that was recharged just before the drought (2011 was the last good recharge year), and when it gets rainy again those with water banking facilities will be putting water back in the ground, which prevents subsidence. (And in those areas it won't take 10,000 years or whatever the clickbait figure is, either.) In other places, farmers are pumping groundwater so they can transfer their surface water supplies to those who have no other good supply options so they can stay afloat, the big stupid jerks. As for those areas where recharge sucks (which helps contribute to subsidence) due to impermeable layers or clayey soil, the choice folks have the choice of exercising one of their property rights (overlying groundwater rights are property rights, which is one reason there's been little political will to impose greater controls on groundwater use) and not losing an existing investment or forgoing a year's worth of income, or not exercising the property right and losing the investment or income. And while droughts are certainly one of the risks farmers have to deal with, access to groundwater is precisely one of the tools farmers count on and have always counted on to help them avoid being hit too hard by a drought. Of course they're going to rely on it today, even if you tell them that they're doing long-term damage that will mean the aquifer they pump from will hold less water in the future (which is one result of land subsidence - it essentially destroys groundwater storage space). They're going to have to lie in the bed they make, it's not like they're squandering resources without consequence. On the whole, groundwater storage is widely considered to be an important component of the state's water supply, but it doesn't do a lick of good if the groundwater is never used. What the state is (finally) trying to achieve with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is long-term sustainability of groundwater use, and that will mean very different things in different places. andamac fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
I know what would really help effect positive change in my community: a homemade animal crucifixion. -Thoughts from a North Berkeley resident quote:I explained to my daughter that the best way to respect the animal was to make a display of it's death to the park going public, to make it's death provide for the possibility that one or two of the patrons would modify their behavior on reflection. To effect a change that might save the next animal. This is not the first time dogs at large in this park have done this. quote:Hanging on the fence is somewhat over the top, but I think it's healthy for even very young kids to see dead animals. For one thing, it helps them understand what could happen to their family pet--or smaller sibling--if they do something very impulsive or reckless, like stepping or sitting on the pet, or leaving the door open with an indoor-only cat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
For those who don't feel like clicking on the link, this is basically all you need to know: This sure is a display that's going to have me leaping to action over pet owners not leashing their dogs, and not at all thinking you're a sick twisted gently caress. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
The best part is not only is it completely demented in the most Berkeley way possible it's also absurdly passive-agressive in the most Berkeley way possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
what's with the weird trend of annoying scrawny hipsters walking their pitbulls everywhere unleashed. Not to pick on pitbulls, but is this dog park thing related? There are way too many deer everywhere.........every time I go to Pacific Grove/Carmel they are running around all over (and usually getting hit by cars). Saw a poor lil' scared bambi get hit right by Lover's Point last time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
I think the display of the dead animal is fine and good. I see dead animals on display every time I go to the grocery store and I often buy parts of them. If you read the article, it's pretty clear the authorities have no interest in enforcing leash laws and the person who put up the fawn deals with that constantly. Unenforceable laws have to be repealed, or you create a society in which lawbreaking becomes casual and unremarkable, and law enforcement becomes capricious and unfair. If leash laws aren't enforceable, repeal them: if you actually want dogs kept on leashes, then you have to enforce that law. Bbbbut floofy just loves charging around off leash! He gets such joy from it, how could I ever not let him run his little heart out! No, gently caress you, you took responsibility for this dog, you can go out of your way to find off-leash parks. You don't get to do whatever you want just because it makes you feel happier. ...also yeah there's too many deer, California isn't exactly a gun/hunting culture, and we've eliminated the apex predators most places. We can't just pretend overpopulation of deer isn't a problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:...also yeah there's too many deer, California isn't exactly a gun/hunting culture, and we've eliminated the apex predators most places. We can't just pretend overpopulation of deer isn't a problem. I don't know if there is any data to actually back this up, but I feel like I've seen a big boom in 'wild' animals in the past few years. If you go out around dusk you'll just see raccoons, possums and skunks wandering around SF in my neighborhood. Also, dog people smugly walking their dogs off leash, need to cut it out. I like dogs, but I do not get this trend at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
People are treating their pets more like children than animals more and more, so they're not going to restrict their freedom, they're going to feed them obscenely expensive food, and they're going to spend oodles of money on toys, daycare, and whatever else makes them feel like they're being good "fur parents." I hate that term... That's at least in the areas where people have significant disposable income. In poor areas, people just don't give a poo poo and don't care that a 3 foot chain link fence is not going to keep a dog inside their yard. That's probably not this situation though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:I don't know if there is any data to actually back this up, but I feel like I've seen a big boom in 'wild' animals in the past few years. If you go out around dusk you'll just see raccoons, possums and skunks wandering around SF in my neighborhood. That's not a result of an increase in animal populations, it's the result of the drought. Animals which once lived in the hinterlands surrounding cities have been driven into the urban cores in search of food and water. Kind of tangential to the original point, but that's why you're noticing them more often.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I think the display of the dead animal is fine and good. I see dead animals on display every time I go to the grocery store and I often buy parts of them. If you read the article, it's pretty clear the authorities have no interest in enforcing leash laws and the person who put up the fawn deals with that constantly. Still doesn't annoy me nearly as much as people feeding birds and squirrels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I hope you're doing your part to reduce the need for Agriculture in California by not eating Californian beef or dairy products. andamac posted:I'm sure you're doing your part to reduce reliance on California ag. Yep, I am doing my part not eating Californian beef or dairy, or insanely thirsty products like almonds. How about you guys?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Still doesn't annoy me nearly as much as people feeding birds and squirrels. At least it isn't raccoons like Montreal. When I was there last month they had volunteers telling people not to feed them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Yep, I am doing my part not eating Californian beef or dairy, or insanely thirsty products like almonds. Don't forget beer, wine, artichokes, asparagus, broccoli, garlic, cauliflower, carrots, celery, table grapes, avocados, tomatoes, strawberries, spinach, plums, specialty citrus, and, well, this list could go on a while. All of it takes water, and if you're gonna complain indiscriminately about "agribusiness" you may as well go full throttle. But, of course, Trabisnikof and I were both pointing out the irony in complaining about ag when you and probably everyone here, even the non-Californians, probably eat a hell of a lot of food that is produced here. Personally, I have almonds in the cupboard right now because I'm a terrible person and am eager to suck the state dry! (Actually I have consciously reduced both my nut and beef consumption along with many other water conservation efforts. My household is one of the top water conservation households in my city. I work in water so it's a point of pride.) A lot of the ire directed at farmers today is misplaced. Irrigation is statutorily codified as the second highest (meaning bestest, in this context, not mostest) use of water in the state (domestic use is the highest use), and that didn't happen last year, or in the last five, or ten, or twenty years. It happened about 70 years ago. And that ag uses a lot of the developed water in this state is not remotely surprising. Of course it does! Ag is what most of the developed water was developed for! The Central Valley Project and State Water Project would be a lot smaller if they weren't intended to provide significant irrigation supplies. To the extent those projects are oversubscribed (and I think both are - meaning the contract totals for the projects exceed the amount of water that is actually available on a regular basis), at least some of your ire should be directed at those who manage the projects and award the contracts. As for groundwater use, I've already explained why generalizations don't really work, and why even those who are putting extreme stress on their aquifers are making the decisions that make sense, for them, right now. (Doesn't mean that those areas aren't a good demonstration of the commons problem - they very much are. SGMA is intended to help remedy one of the things that makes the tragedy of the commons a tragedy - the lack of coordinated management of the resource in question.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
andamac posted:Don't forget beer, wine, artichokes, asparagus, broccoli, garlic, cauliflower, carrots, celery, table grapes, avocados, tomatoes, strawberries, spinach, plums, specialty citrus, and, well, this list could go on a while. All of it takes water, and if you're gonna complain indiscriminately about "agribusiness" you may as well go full throttle. But, of course, Trabisnikof and I were both pointing out the irony in complaining about ag when you and probably everyone here, even the non-Californians, probably eat a hell of a lot of food that is produced here. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
andamac posted:pointing out the irony in complaining about ag when you and probably everyone here, even the non-Californians, probably eat a hell of a lot of food that is produced here.  "... is not a useful or valid stance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:"If you eat food you cant complain about political water structures "
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Wow you guys are super eager to take offense (enraged_camel didn't seem to be so). Everything going ok? It IS ironic to say "gently caress CA agribusiness" while contributing to the demand for CA agribusiness products, because you would expect someone who says "gently caress CA agribusiness" to shun such products. I don't really think camel means "gently caress all agribusiness" though, and I don't think actually shunning all CA agribusiness products is a realistic demand at all (the list of products was sarcasm, jesus christ you guys). That's why I didn't say "well YOU don't shun all CA agribusiness products what a big hypocrite you are!" I do think that if people give a poo poo about ag water use they should try to reduce their use of some of the worst offenders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
andamac posted:Wow you guys are super eager to take offense (enraged_camel didn't seem to be so). Everything going ok? "Are you a perfect being? Guess you better shut up then." It is toxic rhetoric. Even a crackhead can say "crack is bad dont do it" and be right. andamac posted:I do think that if people give a poo poo about ag water use they should try to reduce their use of some of the worst offenders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
andamac posted:Wow you guys are super eager to take offense (enraged_camel didn't seem to be so). Everything going ok? This would be great if all the items produced were consumed locally or domestically. Almonds and alfalfa, along with other water hungry crops make the majority of their money from exports. I don't know many, if any, people who are saying agribusiness should stop growing everything. It would be nice, however, if they weren't massively draining a shared public resource to produce cash crops for export to China. Urban and suburban users of water have, for the most part, been sucking it up and reducing usage by 25-50%. Maybe agribusiness can bite the bullet and export less alfalfa. Yes, businesses have a right to make money, but not at the expense of a shared and limited public resource. The land is literally sinking so that some of these companies can make millions from exporting loving hay. It's just one example of a dumb crop, but it's a drat good one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:No, its just a common argument to kill attempts to drive attention to something. I agree! I was trying to parody it. I'm not an rear end in a top hat I swear. On another note, there's Legionnaires' disease at San Quentin. Legionnaires' AND plague, go California! e: Tuxedo Gin posted:This would be great if all the items produced were consumed locally or domestically. Almonds and alfalfa, along with other water hungry crops make the majority of their money from exports. I don't know many, if any, people who are saying agribusiness should stop growing everything. It would be nice, however, if they weren't massively draining a shared public resource to produce cash crops for export to China. Urban and suburban users of water have, for the most part, been sucking it up and reducing usage by 25-50%. Maybe agribusiness can bite the bullet and export less alfalfa. Yes, business have a right to make money, but not at the expense of a shared and limited public resources. The land its literally sinking so that some of these companies can make millions from exporting loving hay. It's just one example of a dumb crop, but it's a drat good one. Almond exports are actually down a bit I think - more are being produced in China every year. I get the complaint about exports, but with the current state of water law there isn't really a good way to enforce restrictions on doing so (and, again, little political will). And as for voluntarily not exporting stuff like alfalfa hay, that means less income, and there really are families that have been ranching and haying since the late 1800's - that's just what they do. They COULD do something else, but it's a bigger step than some people realize, I think. (And I get that too.) "Shared public resource" is not necessarily inaccurate, but is a little tricky - people with land overlying aquifers have a right similar to a riparian right to take water from the aquifer. It comes with the land, it's literally a property right they own. Doesn't mean the state (or local government entities) has no power over groundwater use - property rights can be regulated. But it's not like a public road, or even quite like a river or surface lake, where the public has more obvious public trust-type rights (the classics are fishing, commerce, and recreation). andamac fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
andamac posted:I was trying to parody it. Suuure you were.  I don't eat almonds (in fact, I hate the loving things) so I guess I'm the only person who can say burn the almond crops to the ground.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
andamac posted:It IS ironic to say "gently caress CA agribusiness" I guess it's a good thing that posters have gone out of their way to make it clear they're not saying this, then! I'm glad we can agree that the use of water in California's agricultural sector is a nuanced and complex problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
And like the next thing I said was that I didn't really think that's what he meant. I HAVE been reading.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
andamac posted:I agree! I was trying to parody it. I'm not an rear end in a top hat I swear. Obviously this is a political problem, but excuses like "well, we have the water rights" and "our family has been growing hay since the late 1800's" are not really valid. Just because they legally have the right to do so, and have always done so, doesn't give someone the right to continue to do hosed up poo poo at the cost of everyone else. Politics moves slow, and by the time water rights laws and conservation laws even begin to address the most serious issues, the groundwater will be all gone and who knows what that will do. The land is sinking. We know this. We're not sure exactly what this is going to do, but chances are it will have some pretty unfortunate seismic results. Urban water users are not the ones pumping the groundwater dry. The rural residences aren't either - few of them can afford wells deep enough to hit groundwater at its current depths. Most well drilling operations have 6+ month waitlists at the moment because farms are desperate to tap in even deeper. By the time anything happens politically about this, the groundwater supplies could very well be depleted which would have catastrophic effects. I think "gently caress agribusiness" is a legitimate stance when so many urban water users are voluntarily using less while agricultural users are pulling the ultimate FYGM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
andamac posted:And like the next thing I said was that I didn't really think that's what he meant. I HAVE been reading. Alright, sorry. When your parody is indistinguishable from arguments actually made by others, it's no longer parody.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
No problem.Tuxedo Gin posted:Obviously this is a political problem, but excuses like "well, we have the water rights" and "our family has been growing hay since the late 1800's" are not really valid. Just because they legally have the right to do so, and have always done so, doesn't give someone the right to continue to do hosed up poo poo at the cost of everyone else. It's not so much that I think it's a valid excuse as that I understand how it creates a sort of ingrained inertia, or something. It IS a political problem, and it isn't helped by the fact that it's hard to "see" an aquifer being drawn down unless you're in an area that's getting cracked roads and poo poo (and I don't know if that always happens). People can look at Mono Lake being drawn down and say "LADWP wtf are you doing" but they can't as easily look at the Merced Subbasin and notice that maybe something's wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
The hosed up part about the subsidence to me is not only is it it's visible symptom of groundwater depletion, it also likely decreases the space of the actual aquifer to store water when and if Al Gore allows the rains to come. The aquifer is not just emptied, it's destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 05:16 |
|
|
How is it that goods produced for export are somehow evil? I'm in favor of curtailing agribusiness, but not because hurr it's unamerican the chinese are eating those almonds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:34
|
|
