Harvey, you're a smart man and that's what makes it fun to argue with you.  I hope you'll share my sense of good natured fun when we debate.  Already you've taught me about the 3:1 effeciency level in raising poultry, far better than I assumed.  Thanks for the education.

I used quotation marks to indicate "They" in the rhetorical sense.  "They" in this case refers to the so called economic conservative mentality which is really a bare knuckled capitalist mentality that amounts to this:  "if I'm making money then it's a good thing, period."

Let me call a spade a spade and say my mentality in this case is not only socialistic, but more to the point it is nationalistic.  My starting point, or prejudice, is that the  lion's share of natural U.S resources should be spent on people who live in the USA, to make our lives better.

The mentality that perpetual water rights means landowners and all their future generations should have exclusive and absolute control irregardless of how it effects those who did not inherit such entitlements is exactly the same argument royalty and despots make.   In that case, give me socialism.

People who inherit water rights did not earn that water anymore than one earns air to breath.  Should industrial polluters have the right to take away the air we breath by fouling it with toxins, because they will make less money if they are not allowed to take that natural resource for themselves?  Isn't that redistributing wealth by making them spend their "hard earned" money to save air for the rest of us?  

Yes it is and we need to do it!


Cheers,
Tim   Zone 10a

Tim you said "people who inherit water rights did not earn that water". I beg to differ. A person can inherit property that includes water rights, but unless they continue to farm and maintain their claim, they will lose those rights. So yes, they've earned that water by their hard labor, and by the hard labor of those who have been farming that land for the last hundred years.

PS: Almonds may take a gallon per nut, but they're still the most water efficient protein source out there.... Even soybeans take more water than almonds.

Tim, your use of "they" only pertains to farms and businesses, however.  How about "they" who demand the right to eat what they want?  According to the CARB article I linked above, we should grow mostly potatoes and groundnuts (peanuts?) if we want to make the best use of our water.  Personally, I think white sapote probably has some good potential also (one tree in San Diego was once had an annual harvest recorded of 6,000 pounds).  If we want to regulate what is grown, we also need to regulate what is eaten.  And the capitalistic approach to "making money" is directly impacted by the purchasing decisions of the consumer mass.

Almonds exported to China does benefit the U.S. as a whole.  Sure, it more directly benefits the grower but it also partially balances our purchases of iPhones produced in China, etc.  If we demand products at the lowest prices possible and thereby demand products be imported from China, we need to send something back.  Scrap iron alone won't suffice.

The water rights tied to my farm will be inherited by my son.  I see nothing wrong with that at all.  Nor did the previous lawmakers who wrote our constitution.  Originally, when riparian rights were written into the constitution it granted rights for someone upstream to divert all the water they wanted.  One greedy lady made it clear that wasn't prudent and it was changed to restrict it to beneficial uses only (i.e., can't be stored and horded, extorting money from others so that it's released, etc.).

I don't believe we should be growing corn for ethanol and I don't believe we should be growing sod during times of drought (there is a sod farm about 12 miles east of me).  Otherwise, I believe most crops being grown should continued to be grown unless consumer buying habits change.  Let consumers vote with their dollars (or Yen, etc.).

Comparing water to the air we breath is a big stretch, IMO.  The air polluted in China comes around the globe as does the air polluted by your and my cars.  The water I use on my farm flowed naturally here for hundreds of years.  Our federal and state governments established water projects with the specific objective of developing additional irrigated farmland.  Families (and some large farming companies, but mostly families) invested to develop this farmland and now some think those water rights/entitlements should be yanked from under them.  Already many growers are receiving 0% of the water they are supposed to get but many urban groups have complained that farmers haven't been required to cut back.  What outcry we would hear if a large urban population was told they would receive 0% of the water they were expecting to get!

Harvey said:   Let consumers vote with their dollars (or Yen, etc.).

lol   Harvey is for a one world government.    Not me, I say America first.  To me, that means all the people who live here.  Now I'll go out on a limb. Mark my words, China will suck us dry if we let them and short-term profit seekers do so. 

Sorry, but pioneer days in the west are over.  We saw what unrestricted capitalism did to the buffalo...  Here's a sad fact, a larger population means we have fewer individual freedoms.  We have to make large scale policy decisions about the distribution of natural resources and other wealth, or we shall soon evolve into a rigid oligarchy.

Read:   CAPITAL in the twenty first century  by Thomas Piketty  and the scales may fall from your eyes.

I do not believe you should have entirely unrestricted "rights" to water that fell from the sky and originally landed on property that you do not own, but it's now yours by virtue of it briefly flowing past your property, any more than I should have a right to steal a car simply because its parked in front of my house. Saying that water is now yours to do with as you please no matter what the long term consequences are for anyone else can not stand in a world of 7,000,000,000 (and growing) persons.

I'm not saying you are stealing water Harvey.  I'm just saying, with regards to the water flowing past your property, your wishes are not the only things that should matter.

Furthermore, I believe my analogy of air with water is valid.  

Many industrialists have shown that i might choose to create wealth for myself while poisoning air in the process, but I should not have the right to take away air that others might use to breath simply because those oxygen molecules are temporarily in my presence.  Similary, that river water would be temporarily in you presence and then gone, whether by gravity or evaporation.

Air and water are both natural resources that nobody produced and therefore nobody should have the right to claim solely for themselves. Neither did any assembly of men have the right to perpetually assign flowing water to landed gentry and their progeny, regardless of what power that assembly of men claimed.

Finally, let me say that I revere farmers and their miracle of affordable food for billions of people, that they provide.  Thank you Harvey for pursuing your chosen profession.  Thank you for this honest discussion.

Tim


 

Harvey said, "I don't believe we should be growing corn for ethanol and I don't believe we should be growing sod during times of drought (there is a sod farm about 12 miles east of me"

Here we completely agree.

Harvey, this article was written in 2011 but I seriously doubt things have changed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-touts-fruit-and-vegetables-while-subsidizing-animals-that-become-meat/2011/08/22/gIQATFG5IL_story.html

The "meat" of the article is this:

"Of the roughly $200 billion spent to subsidize U.S. commodity crops from 1995 to 2010 (commodity crops are interchangeable, storable foods such as grains and certain beans, and cotton), roughly two-thirds went to animal-feed crops, tobacco and cotton. Roughly $50 billion went to human-food crops, including wheat, peanuts, rice, oil seeds and other crops that become sweeteners, according to a database compiled by the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group. About $12 billion went to crops that were turned into ethanol, a use that is consuming a growing share of the harvest."

"In addition to the subsidies that USDA pays for commodity crops each year, it pays about $5 billion directly to commodity-crop farmers. You don’t have to till the land to get these direct payments. In fact, all you have to do to qualify for the payments is to own land on which commodity crops were growing in 1985."

"Three-quarters of the direct subsidies go to the top 10 percent of commodity-cropland owners; $400 million of the total in 2010 went to individuals who live in cities with populations over 100,000 and hold the land as an investment. Millions more went to land-owning corporations, including real estate firms."

They also mention that farmers who grow fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts get no direct subsidies (though the water issue is fodder for debate as we have seen in this thread).  So I think that meat production is heavily subsidized by way of subsidies to commodity crops that are processed into animal feed.  By and large these subsidies aren't going to the family farmer and only a small portion go to farmers who grow human food.  Another take-away from this article is that, in terms of crop subsidies, it would seem California is not treated very fairly.

I suspect attitudes would change real quick IF California stopped exporting food to the rest of the world, or at least the other 49 states. When you realize that the overwhelming percentage of many, many crops are grown in California (80% is the often quoted number).

We are almost the exclusive source for raisins, almonds, rice, nectarines, figs, etc. etc.

Another issue is replaceability. If you don't water tomatoes for a year, you don't have a crop that year. But if you don't water trees for a year, you likely won't have any trees, and if you start over with new ones, you have probably 5 years before you get fruit again. In the case of almonds, trees that are over stressed for a year never return to full productivity again, even if sufficiently irrigated thereafter.

Take another angle: suppose we said to you that there isn't enough electric power, so we are not going to supply your house with power this year. How does that affect your lifestyle? Apart from installing solar or your own generator, your house becomes worthless (try and sell it). You would probably have to move, and lose you investment in your house. Now you might have to pay rent (if you don't have enough cash for a downpayment on a new house) so your expenses went up. Maybe you work from home, and you have to move you business or job. New schools for the kids, etc. etc. Water works much the same way. Take a farm's water away for a year, and you have no income. If you have an orchard, you will probably loose the orchard. The farm land is worthless without water, so not much to sell, so you loose your wealth/capital, as well. Now you have to retrain for a new job. If you have a family farm, it might leave multiple generations without income: maybe you, some or all of your children, your grandchildren, etc.

Generations of families have developed their farms and orchards based on the laws regarding water rights that go back 100 years and more.. If you now change the rules of that game, it is no different than saying to Starbucks, or Target that they will no longer have electricity. Too bad you spent all that money on a building and merchandise and parking lots, equipment, etc. that you can't use, now. Oh, and have a nice day!!

Tim, you appreciate the U.S. constitution that grants you the right to free speech. I appreciate the California constitution that grants me rights to the water that flows past my property for any beneficial use I see fit.  You don't have to like it any more than I dislike your expression of your opposition to my rights.  My rights are further established by a legal settlement from 1981 that resulted from the state diverting water illegally in 1977 to serve junior rights.  If the state decides they need the water I and a group of other landowners in my water agency they are required to pay us for our crop losses.  You might not think I'm entitled to the water but the constitution and lawyers disagree.  I do not have scales covering my eyes but work my butt off to feed people and am fed up with lazy folks criticizing me for doing so.  Yes, I get paid okay for doing so but do it more for the satisfaction of seeing "fruits of my labor" (I made considerably more at a much easier job which I quite several years ago due to boredom.)  You read the articles I posted links to, they're much shorter than your leftist book.

Steve, things have changed considerably since then.  I have corn acreage base so I know a good deal about such subsidies (I previously grew corn).  Use for ethanol production, which I've already said I disagree with, has also declined due to falling oil prices.  I also dislike the effects of alcohol on small engine parts.  I suppose if we had huge surpluses of corn I might support the use of that corn for ethanol production but that has not been the case for some time.

Perhaps the Sites Reservoir will actually get build and help, but this should have been done long ago.  We need more than just one additional reservoir, however.

Harvey, I think productive farmers should have priority water rights, but since it is a limited resource that belongs to all Americans your produce should be sold exclusively in America.  Heck with the trade imbalance, our water imbalance is far  more critical.   We are sucking our ancient aquifer dry.  We don't even know how much water remains.  spooky

As for calling me lazy, I'm not the least bit offended. I pulled no punches and anticipated that you might get a little hot. For you it's much more personal and I get that; it's your heritage and livelihood. For me it's an academic discussion.

I do mean well.

Cheers,
           Tim   Zone 10a Santa Barbara, CA

Tim, I did not call you lazy.  Anybody that collects water from the gutter isn't too lazy.  Many of the people writing and complaining about water use by farmers are lazy, seemingly with no idea where there water comes from.

However, you are trying to change state, national, and international law and that is not an efficient use of anybody's time because you it's next to impossible to changing any of those.

Quote: I have to agree with Harvey on this issue. If you have water rights you have them. If you don't, well, then you don't. 

Look at history, we have proved time and again self-centered, unfettered, capitalistic access to natural resources by a growing population results in the demise of the resource for everybody.  That is unwise if not immoral.

The passenger pigeon or wild pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) is an extinct North American bird. it was once the most abundant bird in North America, and possibly the world.^[2][3] It accounted for more than a quarter of all birds in North America.^[4] The species lived in enormous migratory flocks until the early 20th century, when hunting and habitat destruction led to its demise.^[5] One flock in 1866 in southern Ontario was described as being 1 mi (1.5 km) wide and 300 mi (500 km) long, took 14 hours to pass, and held in excess of 3.5 billion birds. That number, if accurate, would likely represent a large fraction of the entire population at the time.

We can not count on the good will of all individuals to preserve and protect our natural resources, that's the reason the EPA is necessary.

Cheers,
           Tim Zone 10a Santa Barbara, CA

Harvey, it is funny you said this: " However, you are trying to change state, national, and international law and that is not an efficient use of anybody's time because you it's next to impossible to changing any of those." 

Because, that's exactly what I'm trying to do.  I'm sure this may sound unreal, nevertheless I'm close to completing the composition of a statewide ballot proposition, the Proof of Truth in Federal Elections Initiative.  Some time shortly after the first week of July, the web site ProofOfTruth.ORG will be operational and tell all about it.  Stay tuned, I believe it's a rather clever response to the Citizens United, Alvarez, and Susan B. Anthony List rulings by the Supreme Court. This blog is the first public forum to receive this information.


Cheers,
Tim Zone 10a Santa Barbara, CA

Back in the old days, most houses had cisterns and used rain water to supplement what shallow wells produced. A lot of what we are facing today in cities is the result of outlawing the use of cisterns, sumps and inadequate building of reservoirs to store water during plentiful years. Landholders in may states are barred from building ponds to capture run off water. Instead we allow water to run into storm drains which run into concrete drain paths and out to sea.  Long Island has no natural water and gets about the same amount of rain as much of California but has much less of a water problem despite a lot of urban growth because of the use of sumps which capture the water and allow it to return to the aquifer rather than being flushed out to sea.  California is not unique. The lake I live on  in SC supplies water to Atlanta. The last year of our 3+ year drought, the lake had dropped 30'. Meanwhile we were obligated to supply Atlanta, to feed the turbines and the nuclear reactors in the Savannah river basin and to flush hundreds of thousands of gallons of water to the sea every hour to protect a small green frog living somewhere below the nuclear plants in GA. Duke Energy has built an interesting reservoir near lake Keowee that captures water below the plant and pumps it upstream, into a reservoir they built to supply the plant. Water is released from the reservoir as needed to feed Lake Keowee and its nuclear plant, the end result being that water is being recycled and less is being lost. We need more of this type of activity upstream where salinity is not an issue to preserve water supplies downstream.  It may not be easy to find areas to build new reservoirs but a perfect 'shovel ready' project in this area would have been to deepen all those sections of Lake Hartwell that were dry as a bone. Very few of the landowners would have complained about having deeper water around their property. Atlanta would be less pressed for water and both the nuclear plant and toad would have been happy to have a better supply of water and less concerns about salinity either killing the frog or damaging the plant in dry years.  People are just short sighted so much of the time.

"Not sure how many of you know this, yet Obama had passed a law to take water from major water sources in the case of a major water shortage to save it for the military which would in turn kill a lot of Americans who have nothing to drink, and dead plants so way less food to go around."

Alan, if such a law exists then it was not President Obama who passed it.  Only the legislative branch can pass laws.  The executive branch carries out the laws.  The President can veto a law passed by congress but cannot pass laws.  For more info see: https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government

I'd like to add my 2 cents to this discussion. The  'elephant' in the room is the on-going geo-engineering of the world's climate. All of this talk of replacing lawns with vegetables or ripping out almonds is missing the bigger picture entirely. Millions of people around the world have awakened to this program, but soon we won't need to worry about almonds or figs or tomorrow. Go to http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org  Sorry, I just had to say it. A friend believes that the Gov could not successfully carry this out. I agree, but the military can and is. 

Link

This is a perfect illustration of why the drought is worse than it needs to be.

We had the wettest May on record and not a single politician or bureaucrat in Poway thought that water use might drop when there was rainy weather, record rainy weather. They just assumed that everyone would use the same amount that they did last year, and the year before, when May was a dry month.

And, after discovering their mistake, when it was too late, they had no creative ideas on how to save the water or put it to beneficial use. Save water; save money: we don't need that water.

"Hundreds of thousands of gallons of water went to waste in California at a time when water conservation efforts are more serious than ever for the drought-stricken state.

The mayor of Poway, a city in San Diego County, defended the decision to dump 550,000 gallons of drinking water into a nearby canyon, according to ABC affiliate KGTV.

“It was a perfect storm of conservation and heat,” Poway Mayor Steve Vaus told KGTV.

In an ironic twist, the reason so much water was lost was because of conservation efforts. The water sat in the Blue Crystal Reservoir for too long, according to KGTV. Heat created a chemical imbalance of chloramine, a combination of chlorine and ammonia used to disinfect drinking water, making the water, according to state regulations, unsafe to drink.

“I think it’s a shame, the city should have prepared better for it,” said resident Helen Shelden.

More than 500,000 gallons of water can reportedly supply four households for a year.

Vaus said the water was dumped rather than being put back in the lake where it came from, because it would be too expensive.

“This was just an unfortunate consequence that pains us, but we want to keep our people healthy,” Vaus said.

The mayor said the water wasted is a small amount compared to what residents use annually, according to KGTV.

The City of Poway did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment."

Price Increase

So, now people are discovering a new truth: if you use half as much water, the price has to double so that water departments have the same $ income. The more you conserve, the more the price has to go up.

"Not sure how many of you know this, yet Obama had passed a law to take water from major water sources in the case of a major water shortage to save it for the military which would in turn kill a lot of Americans who have nothing to drink, and dead plants so way less food to go around."

Alan, if such a law exists then it was not President Obama who passed it. Only the legislative branch can pass laws. The executive branch carries out the laws. The President can veto a law passed by congress but cannot pass laws. For more info see: https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government

__________________
Steve MD zone 7a


Steve, what you stated is our Constitution. What has been happening recently is a runaround of the Constitution by excessive targeted use of Executive Orders by Obama to circumvent legislative action. Numerous examples exist that can be found such as immigration law. I am just not sure if executive orders are being implied here with water use issue.

Constitutional law was my best subject in law school. It is a shame our country's leaders are tearing it to shreds for political gain.

GolfMomTN, I was responding to a comment asserting that the president passed a law.  Executive Orders are another matter.

"What has been happening recently is a runaround of the Constitution by excessive targeted use of Executive Orders by Obama to circumvent legislative action."

All recent presidents have used executive orders.  Democrats were unhappy with Bush's and Republicans are unhappy with Obama's.  However, the current occupant's rate of issuing executive orders is rather low compared to other presidents.  For example, see the chart in this article comparing executive orders among presidents:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/24/barack-obama-executive-orders-immigration_n_6213800.html

This is a tangent that has nothing to do with figs or the CA drought and I won't comment further on this but if you want to discuss more please PM me.