I used to think this guy was alright but lately he is showing himself to be leaning to the left, he** today he defended LGF.
The point of this article shouldn't be that Californias use low flush toilets or take a dump outside under a tree to save water(oK, I added that)but that the state should dump the EPA and start building desalinization plants all along the coast, thus eliminating the water problem forever. This guy is also downplaying the total devastation that cutting the water off to these farmers is causing.
Do we need more damns in CA? Yep, we need them for the electricity that greenies don't want us to have, fish ladders solve the fish problem. Desalinization plants would solve the "salt water" backing up into the delta in the summer, as all the water farmers and others would need would come from them, or at least most of it.
If the Southern half of the state built the plants the North would have plenty of water without them. The tough choice Californians should be making isn't whether to flush or not but to dump EPA regs and ignore fed mandates on building. Kick the greenies out of the state and do what is best for the humans living here.
He defended LGF? Where?
The point of this article shouldn't be that Californias use low flush toilets or take a dump outside under a tree to save water(oK, I added that)but that the state should dump the EPA and start building desalinization plants all along the coast, thus eliminating the water problem forever. This guy is also downplaying the total devastation that cutting the water off to these farmers is causing.
Downplaying?
VDH: The crisis is not over an entire valley, but instead a sizable part of it without regular irrigation deliveries. For those farmers and workers whose livelihoods depend on that parched acreage, the result is undeniably catastrophic.
He said that the "west side is not yet a “dust bowl", and "The majority of west-side land is still farmed" and "The crisis is not over an entire valley, but instead a sizable part of it". Sound to me as a fact check, so the opposite side won't be able to dismiss the proper claims as exaggeration.
The point of this article shouldn't be that Californias use low flush toilets or take a dump outside under a tree ...
You are misreading the article. What he is talking about is that Californians are leading the way in magical thinking. They want everything without any tradeoffs. And the real life comes out now with a reality check.
VDH:
... All this should remind us that Americans have developed a bad habit of avoiding tough choices. Californians could build more dams and more canals, and farm with adequate irrigation, but that would mean fewer natural flowing rivers, fewer fish, and saltier deltas.
Few, though, will honestly acknowledge, “I want 10,000 acres of almonds, but I realize that will mean a slightly saltier delta and less marine life,” or, on the flip side, “I vote for more delta smelt but understand that will mean fewer tomatoes.”
Instead of making these bad/worse decisions, we dream on about a natural California, with plenty of rain, stuffed with 36 million affluent residents (most of them crammed near Los Angeles or San Francisco).
Your point about Desalinization is a good one. But I don't expect any author cover everything I want the way I want. His point in many articles about California for quite awhile was that it's unsustainable, it's impossible to continue expecting the utopia (even in the paradise like California) without investing into infrastructure, energy development, by driving out the productive with high taxes, regulations etc,etc. He was talking on many occasions that whatever the previous generations built is being squandered quickly and the naturally rich state goes downhill way too fast.