Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California's Water Problem
Townhall.com ^ | April 28, 2015 | Walter E. Williams

Posted on 04/28/2015 4:47:50 AM PDT by Kaslin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 04/28/2015 4:47:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

withold water from registered Democrats, mexicans and muzzies......problem solved..........


2 posted on 04/28/2015 4:51:20 AM PDT by rrrod (at home in Medellin Colombia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’ve got it! Move all agriculture to Mexico!
Oh, that’s already happening?
Late to the party again!


3 posted on 04/28/2015 4:52:42 AM PDT by poobear (Socialism in the minds of the elites is a con-game for the serfs, nothing more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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/


4 posted on 04/28/2015 5:10:12 AM PDT by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Soon California’s only crops will be Democrat voters and the takers.


5 posted on 04/28/2015 5:10:31 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Barack Obama is not inarguably sane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: poobear

They failed to mention the idea of desalinization plants. That could help everyone.


6 posted on 04/28/2015 5:12:12 AM PDT by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
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.

Great comparison!

7 posted on 04/28/2015 5:18:54 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taterjay
They failed to mention the idea of desalinization plants.

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.

8 posted on 04/28/2015 5:20:59 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


Without civil engineering and ability to bring water from distance sources, the Roman Empire could not have existed.

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.


9 posted on 04/28/2015 5:24:59 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN (I do not doubt that our climate changes. I only doubt that anything man does has any effect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taterjay

These b@stards would rather drain Lake Mead and ship to Tijuana than build a desalinization plant!


10 posted on 04/28/2015 5:30:35 AM PDT by poobear (Socialism in the minds of the elites is a con-game for the serfs, nothing more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN
Governments have few legitimate functions, providing access to clean water both for humans and crops could be considered one such function.

How do you feel about taxing one group of people to provide low cost water to a different group?

11 posted on 04/28/2015 5:36:39 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN
I am willing to bet that 80% of California’s wealth is also from agriculture.

Want to bet $20? Loser pays to:
https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/

12 posted on 04/28/2015 5:38:56 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


13 posted on 04/28/2015 5:52:36 AM PDT by puppypusher ( The World is going to the dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

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.


14 posted on 04/28/2015 5:59:04 AM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Just wondering why they are not considering drip irrigation like they use in Israel. Visiting Israel, I saw the desert transformed into lush gardens and farms using very little water. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuWoPLR-rpk
15 posted on 04/28/2015 6:03:13 AM PDT by Apple Pan Dowdy (... as American as Apple Pie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tiki

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.


16 posted on 04/28/2015 6:10:45 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tiki
Note also the statement in this article:

California farmers argue that without federal and state government subsidies, crops could not be grown in desert areas.

17 posted on 04/28/2015 6:12:38 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: poobear

How is Mexico’s water supply?


18 posted on 04/28/2015 6:58:43 AM PDT by goodnesswins (I think we've reached PEAK TYRANNY now.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tiki; thackney; CIB-173RDABN
California uses a dual doctrine of water rights: Riparian and Prior Appropriation.

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.

19 posted on 04/28/2015 7:07:20 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

Thanks for the summary!


20 posted on 04/28/2015 7:10:48 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson