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: duckman2000, spoonysmaker, OGblackcloud

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: 4458
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:30 am


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: 3717
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: 8921
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: 4458
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: 3717
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

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: 3717
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: 8921
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: 8921
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 2:31 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: 8921
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.
Image
Huntsprig
hunter
 
Posts: 237
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: 3717
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: 8921
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

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: 4458
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:30 am

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: 145
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: 4458
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: 535
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: 145
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:46 pm


Return to California Duck Hunting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests