Posted on 04/07/2015 3:50:42 AM PDT by Vaquero
Carly Fiorina is blaming liberal environmentalists for what she calls a “man-made” drought in California
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I don’t support iCarly for president, but I gotta applaud her aggressiveness. She is obviously aiming for a position in the upcoming Republican administration.
She is absolutely correct on this one. The environmental lobby and the politicians it has bought in California has done more to harm the California economy and agriculture industry than any combination of natural disasters ever could.
With her aggressive truth telling, she’s definitely auditioning for VP.
-PJ
She’s right about this but she’s not my candidate. Either Cruz or Walker.
Naw, let’s go next-level, and save the habitat of the Downy Blue Screech Hipster Owl...
Start with livestock production which is incredibly damaging to animals AND the environment not to mention is half the water used in the country.
yea....smelt to high heavens
This is a terrific article which lays it all out.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-green-drought-1428271308
No major water infrastructure has been completed in California since the 1960s due to environmental obsessions.
Construction of water retention infrastructure and desalination plants are confronted by years of insane environmental lawfare.
Environmental rules forbid pumping excess water from the north Californian catchment to reservoirs in the south.
And the Democrats insist on pouring fresh water into the sea.
You sure you didn't mean to post at the Daily Kos??
news flash...we utilize livestock. and California and the US Govt. stopped water to the central valley farms....because people in that central valley are mostly republicans. it didn't matter that it used to feed much of America.
the problem is cramming millions into a friggin desert and then preventing the building of a watershed and dams.
I watched a show on the science channel, I believe, where this guy was getting permits, then tearing down damn, so the salmon can come back there after a century of the fish being gone.
bfl
You make a ridiculous statement. Grain production is equally damaging if not more so. Check out the MS River delta where millions of tons of topsoil are found. Worst of all are cities that cover every square inch of soil with impermeable concrete and buildings.
He is another ignorant urbanite living on impermeable concrete to cover the topsoil.
Certainly more evidence of “man-made California drought than for “man-made” global warming. Desalination effort blocked (cement plant conversion), no dam to keep the river from FLOWING FREELY past the thirsty people (to protect a non-indigenous fish). Frankly, they worked hard to deserve their draught.
Any time you start moving a resource from where it is readily available to where it isn't you are setting yourself up for catastrophic failure.
The enviro-whackos are also Population Control zealots, which seems to be the driving force along side Eugenics.
Sorry, this is nonsense.
The drought is a fact of nature. Runoff is a small percentage of “normal.” Under such conditions, it simply doesn’t matter all that much how many dams you have or whether you do or do not direct water to keeping stream flows going for environmental reasons.
All such concerns can do at this point in time is to nibble around the edges of the problem.
I suppose an engineer could sit down and figure out what the state’s water problems would be today if all possible storage had been built over the last 50 years. They would doubtless be less severe, but the problem would still exist.
The problem is essentially two-fold:
1. Moving vast numbers of people into a region that cannot support them based on variable runoff.
2. Using vast amounts of water to grow water-intensive crops in desert or semi-desert regions. Again with the source of water being areas with highly variable runoff.
You simply can’t collect or store water that doesn’t run off.
BTW, I suggest it’s a conservative principle to not initiate settlement or agricultural patterns that are not sustainable in the long run. It’s the “progressive” mindset that believes we can or should ignore the constraints of the real world.
It is also a conservative principle that the meaning of the word "sustainable" be determined by the market, and not by central planners. How would you determine who is to settle where?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.