USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Duck hunting in California topics include: California duck hunting trips, the past hunting seasons, and share information about California duck hunting guides.

Moderators: #1wingnut, duckman2000, PinTeal, finsnfeathershunter

USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby Butta boom » Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:59 pm

By now most Sac Valley duck hunters know all about term 91. The new term many of us will learn next is Sac River Settlement Contracters. The reason is that the governing body for the Sac River, USBR, the operators of Shasta Dam, and the agency that gets paid to deliver project and base supplies of water to all districts on it, is about to break their contracts with those districts.

The districts I am referring to are GCID, RD. 108, RD 1001, SMWCO, and every other user of the Sac River. These districts all had water rights way before the Shasta Dam was built. They agreed to settle with the bureau, and sign a contract for water that was attributed to the dam, so called project water, without going to court, if they could not be cut more than 25% than their agreed upon contract amounts. The remaining 75% supply was characterized as the baseline drought yield of the river without the Dam. The thirty years of diversions before the dam was built, was used to calculate those amounts.

Last week the bureau contacted all of these water users and asked them to come to a meeting. The bureau does not generally like to meet with anyone, they are sort of like the IRS. We were suspicious of a meeting like this, since we have endured many droughts before, and the bureau never needed to have a meeting to explain our contract to us. Then suddenly the day before they cancel.

Out of the blue, Obama visits the state, and the meetings are supposed to be rescheduled for later this month. I am pretty sure they are going to try to break our contracts, which will be a monumental bomb thrown into the body of California water law.

Frankly, our government, will do as they please. Contracts mean nothing to those people. The state water districts will have a fifty percent supply and now it looks as though the Fed districts may have that level of supply as well. The winter water is out the window in my opinion. This is the bleakest duck hunters forecast in my lifetime, maybe one hundred fifty thousand acres of winter water, tops.

We are about to learn the value of rice to the pacific flyway, the hard way.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm


Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby 3200 man » Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:57 am

Conservatively , that's to bad ! But , those 200 hp pumps Farmers invested in ( wildly ) could be controlled too ?

It's time to step back and lobby for man-kind ( future ) of this state and not a select few that raise crops ,that
the greater percentage is shipped overseas ?

Hopefully , justice will be served so it's fair for All !
3200 man
hunter
 
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:30 am

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby Butta boom » Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:46 pm

3200 man wrote:Conservatively , that's to bad ! But , those 200 hp pumps Farmers invested in ( wildly ) could be controlled too ?

It's time to step back and lobby for man-kind ( future ) of this state and not a select few that raise crops ,that
the greater percentage is shipped overseas ?

Hopefully , justice will be served so it's fair for All !


Our ability to export food around the world is hugely important to the economy of this state. If we only produce enough goods here to supply our own country we are ignoring over 90% of our planet. How many other products should we prohibit the export of? If China quits getting our food, they might quit making our televisions, cell phones, tennis shoes, and our clothing. Our Ag exports are the biggest item in our favor to help balance our trade deficits around the world.

The few that raise crops also own most of the waterfowl habitat in this state, if you like to hunt you got a dog in this fight. Water that goes to LA doesn't support habitats in NorCal.

When our government breaks a contract with a farmer, how is that different than a government breaking a union contract to pay the retirement benefits of its workers? Think about it.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby clampdaddy » Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:01 am

Butta boom wrote: .......Water that goes to LA doesn't support habitats in NorCal.

When our government breaks a contract with a farmer, how is that different than a government breaking a union contract to pay the retirement benefits of its workers? Think about it.


I'm all for telling LA to pack sand when it comes to our water but at the same time, decomp water sitting on a rice field is water that isn't going to an alfalfa or corn field that produces feed for cattle on another local guys farm. Think about it.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3685
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby slowshooter » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:41 am

Butta,
You suddenly don't like it when the government destroys businesses? Why not? It does benefit other larger businesses, correct?

Guess who has the assets to buy up the small guys that are failing? Only the large guys… Remember I said that the asset grab isn't done yet? Guess what? Producers are on the grab list. When the two largest banks in the US dismantled the barrier between them and industry - they put their finger into almost every aspect of the American economy. Including food products.

Want to know why metals now cost more? The banks purchased warehouses and slowed deliver to hike prices. So they stockpile it to goose prices. So manipulating the market (and the water situation) to kill the small Farmer and then have the larger guys step in might be painful - but look at every other industry and you'll see failure means the big guys can sweep down and own even more... The well-funded will win because they can buy politicians and outspend anyone in the either Valley.

Look at what has happened to small business and the middle class since your hero Reagan killed PATCO - after all - he was the original contract breaker. Look at where the money has gone since he sold you the "trickle down" theory, and it was adopted by a pack of morons so lazy, they thought money would fall out of the butts of the rich… Too bad that history shows that It went to the top only to stay there… How the hell do you think the banks and large business got so powerful?

This asset grab isn't over by far and if you think that water is the only way the banks can get to you, you're simply living in an alternate universe. They have ALL the money and almost ALL the power. You? Not so much.

The banks/giant Ag don't need you. At all. Heck, they're so large now that when they appear on the horizon to move you out or otherwise hinder your access to the market and profitability? You won't even be able to see their edges.

How did Obama's visit to Colusa, Yuba and Sutter go? Oh wait. He went to places that where hot heads don't holler about birth certificates, Benghazi, the IRS, Clinton, Monica and Vince Foster. Ooops...

You're a farmer, you knew right up front that reap what you sow. With no water, you might consider different crops to make more money… But more money would be all the more reason for them to wrest it away from you - or put a Goldman Sachs sign between you and the market…

At that point prices might spike but you won't see any of the revenue. Your options would be sell, or fail - then sell. Look at either situation and you'll see the commonality.

Not trying to pitch you a scare, but the wolves are heading for your door. And no power on earth is currently able to stop them. Like I said, pray for rain… Because the biggest, immortal suckling is eventually going to bump you off that nipple and into oblivion.

The only way that you will be safe? Tell all your Republican friends that you all were bamboozled, then recognize that you believe what you are told by your party and pals, because you are basically a pack of authoritarians. The kind of people that need to be told what to think or believe. Then hammer the parties relentlessly to shift the flow of money from the top and towards the middle class. Lastly, work with the US Government to adopt the post Great Depression laws that hindered banks from the very activity that will allow them to eat you alive. I didn't say the chances were good....

You just need to recognize the one thing I tell folks over and over…. If you pick a side in politics you might feel you are helping to move a needle because you feel like part of a team. The harsh reality is that while you might pick a team to be on… Neither the Democrats or the Republicans are on your side.

Good luck and I sincerely mean that.

Best,
Slow
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby 3200 man » Sun Feb 16, 2014 8:07 am

Building tunnels and High-speed rails is waste of money in my eyes , when desaltaion plants are needed here ? :huh:

Talk of more dams or raising dams for more storage is a joke too , with no consistent weather to fill them ? :huh:

If water from San Luis Res can be made to flow West , then it should be possible to flow East ? :huh:

You got to have a endless supply of water , to help Mother Nature do her job ? :huh:
3200 man
hunter
 
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:30 am

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby clampdaddy » Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:34 am

Slow, the government has been breaking contracts since right after they started making contracts. Just ask the Indians. Oh, and Harding, Coolidge, and Kennedy used "Reaganomics" long before Ronnie showed up. :thumbsup:

You know, they really should record this stuff. Like on stacks of paper, all bound together. Then we would have that information for all time. We could even teach it to our kids. Heck, then people might know about things that happened before their own lifetimes. Imagine the possibilities.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3685
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby Butta boom » Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:26 am

clampdaddy wrote:
Butta boom wrote: .......Water that goes to LA doesn't support habitats in NorCal.

When our government breaks a contract with a farmer, how is that different than a government breaking a union contract to pay the retirement benefits of its workers? Think about it.


I'm all for telling LA to pack sand when it comes to our water but at the same time, decomp water sitting on a rice field is water that isn't going to an alfalfa or corn field that produces feed for cattle on another local guys farm. Think about it.


In my part of the Sac Valley, the entire was flooded naturally from the overflow of the Sacramento and Feather rivers. This flooding was seasonal, but was consistent so that there were no winter roads until the levees were constructed in the 1920s. When the Sutter Basin Hwy. was constructed, now known as SR113, it the first direct route to Marysville from the Sacramento/Woodland area.

This large winter lake was known as the "Tule". The current practice of winter flooding rice paddies for three months very closely mimics that historic storage of Sac river Water. That's right. Since nothing is growing in those paddies, there is no consumptive use by plants, using any of it. The amount lost to evaporation is also slight and is usually more than recovered by the rainfall that falls during that time period, about a foot. The extensive drainage and recovery system that is in place puts that water back in the river as soon as the season is over, our district returns more water to the river than we divert on a yearly basis.

No waste, no worry, in my region rice decomp increases the water storage of Shasta and the total yield of the project.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby clampdaddy » Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:55 am

Butta boom wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
Butta boom wrote: .......Water that goes to LA doesn't support habitats in NorCal.

When our government breaks a contract with a farmer, how is that different than a government breaking a union contract to pay the retirement benefits of its workers? Think about it.


I'm all for telling LA to pack sand when it comes to our water but at the same time, decomp water sitting on a rice field is water that isn't going to an alfalfa or corn field that produces feed for cattle on another local guys farm. Think about it.


In my part of the Sac Valley, the entire was flooded naturally from the overflow of the Sacramento and Feather rivers. This flooding was seasonal, but was consistent so that there were no winter roads until the levees were constructed in the 1920s. When the Sutter Basin Hwy. was constructed, now known as SR113, it the first direct route to Marysville from the Sacramento/Woodland area.

This large winter lake was known as the "Tule". The current practice of winter flooding rice paddies for three months very closely mimics that historic storage of Sac river Water. That's right. Since nothing is growing in those paddies, there is no consumptive use by plants, using any of it. The amount lost to evaporation is also slight and is usually more than recovered by the rainfall that falls during that time period, about a foot. The extensive drainage and recovery system that is in place puts that water back in the river as soon as the season is over, our district returns more water to the river than we divert on a yearly basis.

No waste, no worry, in my region rice decomp increases the water storage of Shasta and the total yield of the project.

But what gives your area precedence over others? Why shouldn't water be saved for drought conditions for farmers who can use it? Why shouldn't the grasslands be flooded? After all, they get water from Shasta too and it is natural habitat. And what time of year does the decomp water end up back in the river? How does it increase the water storage of Shasta? It may have an overall volumetric gain but where and when it is imputed back into the system makes all the difference in the world. If that water is already lost to the ocean when the August heat is making someones corn stalks thirsty, then it was wasted.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3685
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby slowshooter » Sun Feb 16, 2014 2:13 pm

3200 man wrote:Building tunnels and High-speed rails is waste of money in my eyes , when desaltaion plants are needed here ? :huh:

Talk of more dams or raising dams for more storage is a joke too , with no consistent weather to fill them ? :huh:

If water from San Luis Res can be made to flow West , then it should be possible to flow East ? :huh:

You got to have a endless supply of water , to help Mother Nature do her job ? :huh:


The problem with desalination is that per cubic foot the water would be to expensive to produce - unless the feds took it on and funded it. Which would be another boondoggle.

Plus, I don't want Fukashima water coming out of my tap.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby slowshooter » Sun Feb 16, 2014 2:16 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
Butta boom wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
Butta boom wrote: .......Water that goes to LA doesn't support habitats in NorCal.

When our government breaks a contract with a farmer, how is that different than a government breaking a union contract to pay the retirement benefits of its workers? Think about it.


I'm all for telling LA to pack sand when it comes to our water but at the same time, decomp water sitting on a rice field is water that isn't going to an alfalfa or corn field that produces feed for cattle on another local guys farm. Think about it.


In my part of the Sac Valley, the entire was flooded naturally from the overflow of the Sacramento and Feather rivers. This flooding was seasonal, but was consistent so that there were no winter roads until the levees were constructed in the 1920s. When the Sutter Basin Hwy. was constructed, now known as SR113, it the first direct route to Marysville from the Sacramento/Woodland area.

This large winter lake was known as the "Tule". The current practice of winter flooding rice paddies for three months very closely mimics that historic storage of Sac river Water. That's right. Since nothing is growing in those paddies, there is no consumptive use by plants, using any of it. The amount lost to evaporation is also slight and is usually more than recovered by the rainfall that falls during that time period, about a foot. The extensive drainage and recovery system that is in place puts that water back in the river as soon as the season is over, our district returns more water to the river than we divert on a yearly basis.

No waste, no worry, in my region rice decomp increases the water storage of Shasta and the total yield of the project.


But what gives your area precedence over others? Why shouldn't water be saved for drought conditions for farmers who can use it? Why shouldn't the grasslands be flooded? After all, they get water from Shasta too and it is natural habitat. And what time of year does the decomp water end up back in the river? How does it increase the water storage of Shasta? It may have an overall volumetric gain but where and when it is imputed back into the system makes all the difference in the world. If that water is already lost to the ocean when the August heat is making someones corn stalks thirsty, then it was wasted.


Agree. Those farmers in Firebaugh/Mendota et al need water. The difference between getting less water and no water is pretty big.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby Butta boom » Sun Feb 16, 2014 2:22 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
Butta boom wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
Butta boom wrote: .......Water that goes to LA doesn't support habitats in NorCal.

When our government breaks a contract with a farmer, how is that different than a government breaking a union contract to pay the retirement benefits of its workers? Think about it.


I'm all for telling LA to pack sand when it comes to our water but at the same time, decomp water sitting on a rice field is water that isn't going to an alfalfa or corn field that produces feed for cattle on another local guys farm. Think about it.


In my part of the Sac Valley, the entire was flooded naturally from the overflow of the Sacramento and Feather rivers. This flooding was seasonal, but was consistent so that there were no winter roads until the levees were constructed in the 1920s. When the Sutter Basin Hwy. was constructed, now known as SR113, it the first direct route to Marysville from the Sacramento/Woodland area.

This large winter lake was known as the "Tule". The current practice of winter flooding rice paddies for three months very closely mimics that historic storage of Sac river Water. That's right. Since nothing is growing in those paddies, there is no consumptive use by plants, using any of it. The amount lost to evaporation is also slight and is usually more than recovered by the rainfall that falls during that time period, about a foot. The extensive drainage and recovery system that is in place puts that water back in the river as soon as the season is over, our district returns more water to the river than we divert on a yearly basis.

No waste, no worry, in my region rice decomp increases the water storage of Shasta and the total yield of the project.

But what gives your area precedence over others? Why shouldn't water be saved for drought conditions for farmers who can use it? Why shouldn't the grasslands be flooded? After all, they get water from Shasta too and it is natural habitat. And what time of year does the decomp water end up back in the river? How does it increase the water storage of Shasta? It may have an overall volumetric gain but where and when it is imputed back into the system makes all the difference in the world. If that water is already lost to the ocean when the August heat is making someones corn stalks thirsty, then it was wasted.


Water rights in California are determined by history of use. First in time, first in right. In my case, our pumps were in the river in 1916. Way before Shasta was constructed. The priority system requires the on premises uses to to meet the test of "beneficial use".

Without some guarantee of the right to use your water, nobody would ever plant seeds or own cattle on our land. Water rights are a part of property rights. Nobody should force you to take in homeless people just because they have no place to live.

The de-comp water is usually returning to the delta now, and it is being pumped south to East bay cities, and San Luis Reservoir. Not to mention the habitat needs of the Delta itself.

The cities in this state re-cycle about one or two percent of their use. Ag districts like mine are recycling thirty percent. And the water we return to the system is still more than we take, and is drinking water quality.

Not all parts of the valley are as water efficient as we are. Because this area is below the river elevation for much of the year, we are similar in hydrology to a Delta island.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby slowshooter » Sun Feb 16, 2014 2:31 pm

I think you're trying to have it both ways.

You can't build yourself (and other farmers) up as linchpins of the economy - then follow that up with,

"Who cares if the guys south die, I was in line first so I get all the water".
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby Huntsprig » Sun Feb 16, 2014 2:54 pm

Northern California learned a lesson from what LA did to the Owens Valley and had laws written when the State Water Project was proposed to insure that we would always have the first rights to our water.
Of course, as was predicted in 1933, they are using the courts and multi-billion dollar schemes (the tunnels) to keep the water flowing, not caring at all about the damage is that done to the north's environment and economy. Slowly but surely they are doing the same to the North as they did to the Owens Valley.
The only water that is to be sent south is water that is leftover after all of the north's needs have been met.


California Water Code Section 11460

In the construction and operation by the department of any
project under the provisions of this part a watershed or area wherein
water originates, or an area immediately adjacent thereto which can
conveniently be supplied with water therefrom, shall not be deprived
by the department directly or indirectly of the prior right to all of
the water reasonably required to adequately supply the beneficial
needs of the watershed, area, or any of the inhabitants or property
owners therein.


California Water Code Section 10505

10505. No priority under this part shall be released nor assignment
made of any application that will, in the judgment of the board,
deprive the county in which the water covered by the application
originates of any such water necessary for the development of the
county.


California Water Code Section 386


386. The board may approve any change associated with a transfer
pursuant to this chapter only if it finds that the change may be made
without injuring any legal user of the water and without
unreasonably affecting fish, wildlife, or other instream beneficial
uses and does not unreasonably affect the overall economy of the area
from which the water is being transferred.
A petitioner requesting a change which is subject to this section
shall pay to the board a fee which shall be in an amount determined
by the board to cover the reasonable costs of the board in evaluating
and processing the petition.


Even the father of the State Water Project, Gov. Pat Brown when he was Attorney General agrees:

Opinion of the Attorney General, Edmund G. Brown State Of California. 1955.
In the circumstances specified in the in the statute, Water Code Sections 10505 and 11460 would require that water which had been put to use in the operation of the Central Valley Project in areas outside the county of origin, or the watershed of origin and immediately adjacent thereto, be withdrawn from such outside areas and made available for use in the specified areas of origin.


Not one drop of water is to go south till Northern California gets all it needs.
These folks in 1933 must have had a crystal ball, because they nailed it!

Text from the Referendum Measure 12/19/1933 (prop. 1- which authorized the Central Valley Project)

Argument Against Water And Power Referendum Measure:
"Nor is it certain that the Sacramento Valley will always have water to spare. True, there is a recapture clause; but once communities in the San Joaquin become dependent on the water from the Sacramento, they will find a way to keep it. Thus the development of the Sacramento Valley will be limited."

That is where we are at now.

The people from LA and the San Joaquin Valley don't care what happens to Northern California as long they keep getting what they want.

As they said in 1933, the communities in the San Joaquin Valley and LA have become dependent on the water from the Sacramento, and they are doing everything they can to find a way to keep it.
Huntsprig
hunter
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:42 am
Location: Sacramento, Ca.

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby clampdaddy » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:22 pm

slowshooter wrote:
3200 man wrote:Building tunnels and High-speed rails is waste of money in my eyes , when desaltaion plants are needed here ? :huh:

Talk of more dams or raising dams for more storage is a joke too , with no consistent weather to fill them ? :huh:

If water from San Luis Res can be made to flow West , then it should be possible to flow East ? :huh:

You got to have a endless supply of water , to help Mother Nature do her job ? :huh:


The problem with desalination is that per cubic foot the water would be to expensive to produce - unless the feds took it on and funded it. Which would be another boondoggle.

Plus, I don't want Fukashima water coming out of my tap.

Last thing anybody would want is the federal government getting involved. Everything they touch turns to crap. Desalinized water is costly but that is the price one may have to pay when a city out grows their water resources. If applied properly, that water can be used to replenish ground water supplies. We have a big problem in this state with letting too much fresh water get away to the ocean. As long as swimming pools are full and lawns are green, no city should be trying to claim more water from someone else's supply.

My area is currently dealing with a somewhat related issue. They want us to put 33% more water into the tuolomne river under the guise that it is to help fish. Everyone knows that it has nothing to do with fish and has everything to do with more water ending up in the delta so it can be picked up and moved elsewhere. All the while, we have water caps set low enough that many farmers are going to have to leave acreage fallow in order to move that water to other parcels.

This year will be uncomfortable. If we don't get some serious snow pack, next year will be scary.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3685
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby slowshooter » Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:13 pm

All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby Butta boom » Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:23 pm



How ironic, after the end of farm subsidies, the cities will need subsidies big time to build and operate these new de-sal plants. And they will need massive amounts of power to keep them operating daily. Every new energy source that is deemed improper, the cost of a basic human need will escalate. The Dems hate de-sal for just those reasons, it won't happen until they can no longer find ways to steal water from priority water rights holders.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby 3200 man » Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:28 am

I have been down in Sonora Mexico a few times hunting , around the town of Baja Kino next to the Sea of Cortez ,

If you want to see what to much pumping ground water does , you should visit it also ? Everything is dead for miles

from , Salt water intrusion ! So , watch out Big Corp. Farmers !
3200 man
hunter
 
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:30 am

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby Butta boom » Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:28 pm

slowshooter wrote:Butta,
You suddenly don't like it when the government destroys businesses? Why not? It does benefit other larger businesses, correct?

Guess who has the assets to buy up the small guys that are failing? Only the large guys… Remember I said that the asset grab isn't done yet? Guess what? Producers are on the grab list. When the two largest banks in the US dismantled the barrier between them and industry - they put their finger into almost every aspect of the American economy. Including food products.

Want to know why metals now cost more? The banks purchased warehouses and slowed deliver to hike prices. So they stockpile it to goose prices. So manipulating the market (and the water situation) to kill the small Farmer and then have the larger guys step in might be painful - but look at every other industry and you'll see failure means the big guys can sweep down and own even more... The well-funded will win because they can buy politicians and outspend anyone in the either Valley.

Look at what has happened to small business and the middle class since your hero Reagan killed PATCO - after all - he was the original contract breaker. Look at where the money has gone since he sold you the "trickle down" theory, and it was adopted by a pack of morons so lazy, they thought money would fall out of the butts of the rich… Too bad that history shows that It went to the top only to stay there… How the hell do you think the banks and large business got so powerful?

This asset grab isn't over by far and if you think that water is the only way the banks can get to you, you're simply living in an alternate universe. They have ALL the money and almost ALL the power. You? Not so much.

The banks/giant Ag don't need you. At all. Heck, they're so large now that when they appear on the horizon to move you out or otherwise hinder your access to the market and profitability? You won't even be able to see their edges.

How did Obama's visit to Colusa, Yuba and Sutter go? Oh wait. He went to places that where hot heads don't holler about birth certificates, Benghazi, the IRS, Clinton, Monica and Vince Foster. Ooops...

You're a farmer, you knew right up front that reap what you sow. With no water, you might consider different crops to make more money… But more money would be all the more reason for them to wrest it away from you - or put a Goldman Sachs sign between you and the market…

At that point prices might spike but you won't see any of the revenue. Your options would be sell, or fail - then sell. Look at either situation and you'll see the commonality.

Not trying to pitch you a scare, but the wolves are heading for your door. And no power on earth is currently able to stop them. Like I said, pray for rain… Because the biggest, immortal suckling is eventually going to bump you off that nipple and into oblivion.

The only way that you will be safe? Tell all your Republican friends that you all were bamboozled, then recognize that you believe what you are told by your party and pals, because you are basically a pack of authoritarians. The kind of people that need to be told what to think or believe. Then hammer the parties relentlessly to shift the flow of money from the top and towards the middle class. Lastly, work with the US Government to adopt the post Great Depression laws that hindered banks from the very activity that will allow them to eat you alive. I didn't say the chances were good....

You just need to recognize the one thing I tell folks over and over…. If you pick a side in politics you might feel you are helping to move a needle because you feel like part of a team. The harsh reality is that while you might pick a team to be on… Neither the Democrats or the Republicans are on your side.

Good luck and I sincerely mean that.

Best,
Slow


The government should never destroy a business, especially a farm. The government also has no role in shifting the flow of money from the rich to the poor, the redistribution of wealth. Those are my core beliefs, and I think the majority of working Americans agree with me. At least I got Joe the Plummer on my side.

Trust me our government needs agriculture, the necessity of a reliable, affordable food supply, is what gets these dopes elected. Taking over is not the plan, but some level of control has usually been desired.

The current regime however, never having had a job in the private sector, seems to be oblivious to the "chicken in every pot" campaign promise. They don't really know where food comes from so they fund food stamps instead of a policy that will get food produced through thick and thin, and will be affordable.

Their lack of vision in the water supply arena will cause us to suffer for at least another decade. The failure to build the Auburn Dam will at some point in history be seen as one of the turning points in this states demise.

If our government wants to get rid of guys like me, they will regret it. And so will the country. When there exists a class of men and women that will borrow money to buy seed and fertilizer and plant the seeds of our future every year without fail, trusting only their own ingenuity and God to make them successful, you shouldn't mess with that success.

I appreciate your concern especially if it is genuine.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby Tommyo » Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:44 pm

Hopefully it is a harmless coincidence Butta - time will tell.
Find a way when there is no way.
Tommyo
hunter
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:46 pm

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby 3200 man » Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:24 am

I see this debate coming to a end , and with these good minds (on the forum) getting together problems can be solved !
Taking the next step , with your contacts in Politics and demanding a sensible resolution for all of us ?

In God we pray !
3200 man
hunter
 
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:30 am

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby retired » Tue Feb 18, 2014 5:10 pm

If I remember right. It was Jerry Brown that had a part in stopping the Auburn dam and now he is looking at ways to get more water buy passing a water bond. The other demand for water down south is the oil companys. They are using more water for fracking to get the oil out of the ground. That has been going on for several years and not much has been said about it.
retired
hunter
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: USBR behavior implies serious water shortage

Postby Tommyo » Tue Feb 18, 2014 5:27 pm

Production of ethanol is a big-time water consumer as I understand it.
Find a way when there is no way.
Tommyo
hunter
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:46 pm


Return to California Duck Hunting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests