Posted on 04/28/2015 4:47:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
Californians are experiencing their third year of drought. Headlines read: "Current California Drought Is Driest In State's History; Scientists Fear 'Megadroughts' On Their Way." "Global Warming Upped Heat Driving California's Drought." Then there are scientific claims such as, "There's a rapidly growing body of scientific research finding that California is in the midst of its worst drought in over a millennium (and) global warming has made the drought worse." A Stanford University study said, "Human-caused climate change helped fuel the current California drought." One news outlet summarized the conclusions of a group of environmentalists this way: "California's severe and ongoing drought is just a taste of the dry years to come, thanks to global warming."
Let's examine a few drought facts. California experienced eight major droughts in the 20th century, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. They ranged from two years to as long as nine years, such as that which occurred from 1928 to 1937. In the previous century, there was the bitter drought of 1862-65, which was a catastrophe for the state of California -- made worse by a smallpox epidemic. Scott Stine -- professor of geography and environmental studies at California State University, East Bay -- said that all of these modern droughts were minor compared with California's ancient droughts of 850 to 1090 and 1140 to 1320. One wonders whether California Gov. Jerry Brown and his cadre of environmental extremists would attribute those ancient droughts to man-made global warming.
A large part of California's water problem has economic roots. Whenever there's a shortage of anything -- whether it's water or seats at a baseball stadium -- our first suspicion should be that the price is too low. California agriculture consumes about 80 percent of the state's delivered water, and it has been exempted from many of California's new restrictions. On top of that, agricultural water users pay a much lower price than residential users. In other words, California's farmers are being heavily subsidized.
The Imperial Valley, located in the southeastern part of the state, is geologically a desert. Nonetheless, its farmers grow large quantities of potatoes, cauliflower, sweet corn, broccoli and onions. These crops would not be produced without there being subsidized irrigation and other state and federal subsidies. I need someone to show me that there is such a desperate need for somewhere to grow potatoes, corn and other crops that we need to subsidize making a desert bloom. Western water is mostly controlled by the U.S. Congress and its Bureau of Reclamation. Through lobbying efforts, the Bureau of Reclamation is controlled by growers and other special interests. Water is distributed in California and other Western states not by market prices but by the political process. Agricultural interests have disproportionate political power. That means that agricultural interests receive taxpayer-financed handouts.
California farmers argue that without federal and state government subsidies, crops could not be grown in desert areas. That's a foolish, self-serving argument. If I were an Alaskan wanting to use government subsidies to build hothouses to grow navel oranges, I could use the same argument: Without government subsidies, I couldn't grow navel oranges in Alaska.
Some of California's water conservation regulations are mindless. It is illegal for servers in bars, restaurants and cafeterias to serve water unless customers ask. The amount of water that people drink per day is a trivial part of total water consumption. Estimates vary, but each person consumes 80 to 100 gallons of water per day flushing toilets, bathing and for other residential purposes. Another California water conservation effort is "drought shaming." That's when vigilantes call water utility hotlines to snitch on their neighbors who are watering lawns, washing cars or filling pools. One wonders whether there might arise an anti-vigilante movement to punish the vigilantes.
The bottom line for solving California's water problem is that there needs to be a move toward a market-oriented method for the distribution of water. Government management has been a failure.
withold water from registered Democrats, mexicans and muzzies......problem solved..........
I’ve got it! Move all agriculture to Mexico!
Oh, that’s already happening?
Late to the party again!
I will believe California has a water problem when Obama stops flying out to LA for a speech or a fundraiser followed by a few days of golf at an exclusive luxury desert golf resort in Palm Springs. When water is cut off to the luxury desert resorts, and the swimming pools of the wealthy progressives are empty, I will believe California has a water problem.
http://time.com/7853/obama-golfs-water-guzzling-desert-courses-amid-the-drought/
Soon California’s only crops will be Democrat voters and the takers.
They failed to mention the idea of desalinization plants. That could help everyone.
Great comparison!
Actually, they addressed the issue of desalinization in talking about cost. If Agriculture won't pay the true cost of producing fresh water, more expensive methods are going to be a difficult solution. Unless the voters in the state want to pay for more water subsidies.
The bottom line for solving California’s water problem is that there needs to be a move toward a market-oriented method for the distribution of water. Government management has been a failure.
Governments have few legitimate functions, providing access to clean water both for humans and crops could be considered one such function.
The drought is not the cause of the water shortage in California. The cause is from the leftest agenda that wishes to control every aspect of our lives.
The politicians and the environmentalist work hand in hand to see that no problem is ever solved. It is just one crisis (that should not go to waste) to another.
Cut the water to farms to the point they are no longer economically viable, they will shut down and our food production will (like many industries) move out of the country. That would be bad enough, but if 80% of the water usage is in fact used for agriculture, I am willing to bet that 80% of California’s wealth is also from agriculture.
Farms that no longer produce a product, will no longer produce any income that can be taxed.
These b@stards would rather drain Lake Mead and ship to Tijuana than build a desalinization plant!
How do you feel about taxing one group of people to provide low cost water to a different group?
Want to bet $20? Loser pays to:
https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/
Global Warming?More like polittical stupidity and poor to No planning.If you know that you have inadequate supplies of water you cut back on anything that is water intensive.
Did California do. That?Oh no.They did just the opposite.
I can see wanting to maintain your population but if you can’t support what you have don’t ask for more people to move there.
Do you know water right law in California? I don’t but here you buy long established water rights whether from a body of water or underground aquifer.
When you buy property you get domestic use right and the amount of water is strictly defined. As an example, if you buy an acre and build a house you have enough water right to provide your needs and a lawn and a couple of trees. If you buy 50 acres the water right doesn’t increase, you get just that domestic use.
On agricultural land the rights were already established by the early Spaniards who settled here or were acquired through the federal government by homesteading and are long-standing, they don’t make new ones. No one uses water without that water right, communities, industry or agriculture.
So anyway, you own the rights to a certain amount of water and you pay nothing for it except delivery costs. It is a property right and there aren’t that many in this arid state. Agriculture is not subsidized they actually own the water and pay for the means of delivery.
I understand the water rights are quite complicated and long established.
I was responding to a poster stating the government responsibility to provide water.
In the oil and gas world, private ownership of minerals doesn’t obligate the government to spend money to help move them.
If a farm has water rights, I don’t see it as a government responsibility to provide that water at a distance.
California farmers argue that without federal and state government subsidies, crops could not be grown in desert areas.
How is Mexico’s water supply?
In the eastern half of the nation(wet zone), the states use Riparian water rights.
In the west(dry zone), the states use Prior Appropriation water rights.
But, those states that have both a wet and dry zone use the dual doctrine. The dual doctrine states are those that straddle the 98th meridian(TX, OK, KS, etc) and those states that straddle the Cascades/Sierra Nevada(WA, OR, & CA)
Prior Appropriation is characterized as:
First in time, first right. Rights are in a hierarchy based on when they were first used or appropriated. The older the right, the higher the right. The older or more senior your right, the more likely you are to get your water in any given year. The younger or more junior your right, the less likely you will get your water in any given year.
Use it or lose it. If you don't use your water, someone else can, and under certain conditions, that someone else can end up owning the water right(prescriptive water rights).
Highest beneficial use. The water must be put to the highest beneficial use. Traditionally agriculture was the highest beneficial use but in modern times, water that attracts tourist/recreational dollars generates more money(economic output) than some types of agriculture, like growing a low value crop such as hay or potatoes. Tourists will pay big bucks to golf on bent grass greens and fish for trout and salmon.
A third water right in play in CA and other dry states is Federal and Indian Lands Reserved Water Rights, often called Reserved Water Rights. Tribes with Treaty rights to farm and fish have water rights that enable them to farm and fish, that trump prior appropriation water rights. Likewise, federal lands and the flora/fauna have water rights that trump prior appropriation water rights. Often times this takes the form of a minimum instream flow rate, which means you can't take all the water out of the stream to satisfy someone's prior appropriation water right. Most notably, the Delta Smelt(an indicator species) were entitled to a minimum flow, that trumped a farmer's prior appropriation water right.
Thanks for the summary!
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.