That always reminds me of a scene out of the 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers.'
Posted on 04/05/2015 10:14:38 PM PDT by QT3.14
Jerry Brown, Democrat governor of drought-stricken California, appeared Sunday on ABC's This Week and defended his executive actions that placed mandatory water restrictions on citizens but not on the agriculture industry.
"There are farmers who have senior water rights," Brown told guest-host Martha Raddatz. "Some people have a right to more water than others."
Of his own actions, Brown stated:
This executive order is done under emergency power and it has the force of law. Very unusual. And it's requiring action and changes in behavior from the Oregon border all the way to the Mexican border. It affects lawns. It affects people's -- how long they stay in the shower, how businesses use water.
(Excerpt) Read more at truthrevolt.org ...
Problem solved.
They have the additional advantage of opposite seasons and membership in NAFTA. Produce shipped from Santiago to Jacksonville/Savannah/Charleston via the Panama Canal is about a four to five day voyage or roughly the same as a truck drive from the Central Valley.
I take it you are very well versed in the Bishop Valley water wars from the 1930s to 1950s which turned a once rich agricultural area into an arid one which grows little more than hay and alfalfa.
It was a wake-up call to every other agricultural region in the state.
The state's water woes could be solved either by desalination plants and/or diversion of surplus water from the north. However, either would involve massive civil engineering projects and send the eco-nazis into a hissy fit.
"Some people have a right to more water than others."
Sheesh. You need to learn your place.
Even though you still might not win the state, the dynamics are perfect for Cruz or Walker to boldly speak to the dysfunction and suffering wrought by unopposed dems and out of control liberal policies.
Thirst people will pay attention.
Yes, on all counts.
You’re spot on:
1. Problem would likely be less severe if there weren’t so many illegals in Cali.
2. There is a technical fix available — San Diego, LA, Santa Barbara, San Jose, and SF could each have a nice, big nuclear reactor parked at the coast to power desalination plants. Probably even have enough power left over to juice up those EVs they like so much on the (far-) left coast.
Obviously. /s
Ladies and gentlemen, if you think that the Democrats care about water for humanitarian reasons, then you don’t understand them.
Democrats care about water because they can use it for their POLITICAL purposes. And their political purposes are to enrich themselves and have power to enrich themselves?
The Democrats look at every problem and try to figure out how they can make money from it or gain more power so they can make money off it.
Who here thinks the Democrats want more trains in California to help transport poor people? Who here thinks the Democrats are pushing high speed rail in California to enrich themselves?
The Democrat leaders may have been socialist idealists when they were young, but they are greedy pragmatists now. There is nobody worse than a disillusioned zealot.
Exactly. No qualifications.
California, like all states has a long establish and complex law of water rights, based on water rights doctrine.
In CA, the two main doctrines are riparian and prior appropriation.
When Brown says some people have a right to more water than others, he is talking about prior appropriation water rights, which is based on
First in time, first in right
Use it, or lose it
Highest beneficial use
Considering First in time, first in right, all water rights are either senior or junior to other rights, and the more senior your water right is, the more likely you will get your water during dryer times or drought. The more junior your water right is, the less likely you will get your water during dryer times or drought.
As for buying, prior appropriation water rights can be sold or leased for a term.
But during times of drought, there are not many sellers, unless someone needs the water desperately and is willing to pay a high price.
California, Oregon, and Washington straddle the wet/dry of the Cascades/Sierra Nevada, so they use the dual doctrine of Riparian and Prior Appropriation.
The interior west states like AZ, NM, CO, NV, UT, etc(dry zone) use Prior Appropriation.
Texas, OK, KS, NE, etc straddle the wet/dry line 98 meridian so they use the dual doctrine of Riparian and Prior Appropriation.
The eastern half of the nation(wet zone) use Riparian.
Also in CA, there are Reserved Waters Rights aka Federal and Indian Lands Reserved Water Rights aka the Winters Doctrine. Sometimes this applies to water collected in a reservoir built by the federal govt and often times it establishes a minimum flow in a river. For example: the delta smelt had a right to a minimum flow in the river that ran into the sea. And that right trumped prior appropriation rights.
Also, CA has Overlying Water Rights. The land owner has a right to groundwater beneath his land, and since CA has no restraints on that, the man with the highest right is the man with biggest pump and deepest well. In Texas, the ground water is regulated by Groundwater Conservation Districts(local), and CA is now trying to set up a similar arrangement
That always reminds me of a scene out of the 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers.'
Liberal elites and those who give large donations to Democrats need more water...
Am I close?
Liberal elites and those who give large donations to Democrats need more water...
Am I close? Eff you Jerry Brown...
Cut the water to the farms. Farmers will just have to shop at the supermarket for their food like the rest of us.
The citizens of California have tried to shoot down illegal immigrant goodies, but the courts have stepped in each time. People in the cities aren’t to blame for what is taking place, although they did vote for the Democrats in control. I haven’t heard one peep out of leading state Republicans either on the subject, so it’s hard to blame the voters here.
This is one issue where a Republican could have made a big difference. In California, they just don’t give a fig and it shows.
Norton, I’ll grant you there are plenty of vineyards in the state, but stats do back the fact that California is also a bread basket (not to mean just bread, but figuratively across the board) to the nation as well.
I do agree that Los Angeles in particular could do much better when it comes to water reclamation.
Matbe his farmers should get 90% of the water, up from 80%.
Leaved the rest to the hot tub owners and Starbucks for coffee
The outrage about Browns statement is based on a lot of misunderstanding about water rights as you have pointed out.
The old adage 'The water in the east flows downhill, in the west it flows towards money' seems to still hold true.
On a side note, here in Pennsylvania, We have the right to use the water on our own property but need to apply for a permit if we wish to remove it for sale off the property.
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.