South California: 51st State

[lawrocket 3]

True. Poorly worded. Communities on the West Side of the Valley (like Mendota) had 41% unemployment. Unemployment has dropped because people left. Farming communites were devastated. It rippled through the Valley communities.

Through all the talk of the drought, yes, it is true - there was a drought. But there was also water that was not diverted for farming (under 30% of normal water deliveries). Vast swaths of land were fallowed. No water = no crop. No crop = no work. Very simple and easy to do for those who want to restore streams in the name of the environment while drinking water from Hetch Hetchy.

This has a serious effect on the local economy. Yes - the central valley is a desert that has been made arable by the water deliveries through irrigation. For a century. And then it stopped.

The unemployment issue remains here. I saw an article describe the counties as the "wealthy" counties. San diego and OC? Yeah. I can see that. Everything else? Not even close...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Yes, they do, Jeanne. They don't count to the bigots who run the water boards. It was, after all, a Democrat who ended up being forced to resign from a water board when, after being told of the plight of these people left unemployed and desperate by the diversion of water (which is the commodity that drives farming) that those families aren't exactly raising "doctors or lawyers."

It's not the conservatives who demonstrate overt misanthrope. Yes, misanthrope. Recently, Judge Wanger issued a ruling that "human costs" must be considered when making decisions on water delivery. Yep. It turns out that every organism except humans has played into the decision making.

Frankly - your own misanthropic attitude is as disheartening as it is typical. The people out here recognize how fucked we are without these people and we take care of them as they take care of us. It's the asshats in the cities that have an utter contempt for those that aren't the doctors and lawyers. You know, the ones who think that doing blow at Harvard is genius and struggling to success is a rural area means you are stupid.

The unemployment out here is high because those farmers cannot give work without a crop. It's a sad thing that the ONLY person who tried to give national attention was Hannity because his kooky message on it did more harm than good. I give him credit for trying, but I hate him for his tactics.

Sometime you should give a shot at caring about people, Jeanne. It would be nice to see something come from you besides hate.

There you go.. ASSuming yet again.. and arriving a a big ole FAIL.

[billvon 2,400]

>Very simple and easy to do for those who want to restore streams in the
>name of the environment while drinking water from Hetch Hetchy.

Careful there. You start talking about reducing water for landscaping and stuff like that and the conservatives on here will tear you to pieces for being a clueless, shortsighted treehugger.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What this shows is the petulance of some people when they don't get their way on a couple of issues. They, like many children, threaten to run away from home.

Just out of curiousity, were you quoting King George II or Abraham Lincoln?

Both of those represented the majority view. This is really just one dude being an asshat and absolutely doesn't represent the majority view. Drawing the comparison may seem logical to people that haven't considered the ramifications of revolution or separatist movements, but unless the guy is actually willing to start a war and die for his cause, it should be obvious he's simply grandstanding.

George and Abe did represent the majority view, just as your comment does.
But it doesn't make it right, does it? I'm sure he feels he is just as right as you feel you are. He probably even thinks the same of you as you do him.
Maybe he is willing to start a war and die for his cause. In both American revolutions the majority didn't think the minority would ever start a war, but they were wrong.
Right or wrong, your comment could very easily be attributed to either George or Abe.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[lawrocket 3]

The unemployment rate is not still 41%. The 2005-2009 stat? - 2009 is hen the shit hit the fan. Just like tghe others who were in charge, it's not about anything more than farmers. Uneducated rednecks.

No worries about the workers. Hey, shut down a business and make the business owners pay, employees are merely collateral damage. Acceptable losses.

Unemployment is less now. Something about the opportunities being gone that makes the unemployed leave town. The farmers? Well, there has been some increase in water delivery. We've had a banner year for snow so there's a lot of water, meaning more turbulence in the streams which means that the delta smelt are pressured so water deliveries must be limited. Make sense? In drought the fish are stressed, so no water. A bumper year for water? No deliveries because the fish are stressed. In the normal years, the delta smelt is more subject to predation, meaning no deliveries.

By the way - did you know farmers pay for the water they get? Just like those socialist scumbags who get water from a tap. And since the farmers can't tap wells like the used to and can't store water (riparian issues). So they depend on the allocation of water and can't compete with a fish.

The unemployment issues in the Rust Belt aren't what they used to be because the industry isn't there anymore. And the people aren't either.

The problems on the West Side are due to more than just the Delta Smelt. But I can also fairly well state that they aren't so flippantly dismissable as you have tried to do.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jclalor 12]

The reason they want the water is to grow crops that are only profitable after the federal government pays them subsities, it's nothing more than corporate welfare, for the rich; yes the majority of the money goes to corporate farmers and not family farms.


I always thought those proud right wing farmers detested handouts from the government. If a buisness can not stand up on it's own two feet, then market forces should take over.

[grimmie 173]

What? American farmers enjoy a "Socialist" government backed program. Oh, no. The horror...

[lost_n_confuzd 0]

Quote

And probably pass laws for English only as the Official Language.

English is already the only official language in California.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

The reason they want the water is to grow crops that are only profitable after the federal government pays them subsities, it's nothing more than corporate welfare, for the rich; yes the majority of the money goes to corporate farmers and not family farms.


I always thought those proud right wing farmers detested handouts from the government. If a buisness can not stand up on it's own two feet, then market forces should take over.

If that's the case, give them the water but not the money.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

The farmers? Well, there has been some increase in water delivery. We've had a banner year for snow so there's a lot of water, meaning more turbulence in the streams which means that the delta smelt are pressured so water deliveries must be limited. Make sense? In drought the fish are stressed, so no water. A bumper year for water? No deliveries because the fish are stressed. In the normal years, the delta smelt is more subject to predation, meaning no deliveries.

How can someone tell if fish are stressed and who the hell believes them?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[muff528 3]

Quote

How can someone tell if fish are stressed and who the hell believes them?

Increased incidence of drug abuse, spousal abuse, and suicide. Unusual change in daily routine. Change in behavior. There are ways. (Also, if flies are swarming around them that is a pretty good sign.)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

The reason they want the water is to grow crops that are only profitable after the federal government pays them subsities, it's nothing more than corporate welfare, for the rich; yes the majority of the money goes to corporate farmers and not family farms.


I always thought those proud right wing farmers detested handouts from the government. If a buisness can not stand up on it's own two feet, then market forces should take over.

If that's the case, give them the water but not the money.

Wasn't it the government that built all that infrastructure...damn socialist works.. and guess what... no money to maintain it or upgrade it now and god forbid they have to pay market value for the water....I do believe the farmers got it all for free so they could get very rich.... for... how long was that Rocket???

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The reason they want the water is to grow crops that are only profitable after the federal government pays them subsities, it's nothing more than corporate welfare, for the rich; yes the majority of the money goes to corporate farmers and not family farms.


I always thought those proud right wing farmers detested handouts from the government. If a buisness can not stand up on it's own two feet, then market forces should take over.

If that's the case, give them the water but not the money.

Wasn't it the government that built all that infrastructure...damn socialist works.. and guess what... no money to maintain it or upgrade it now and god forbid they have to pay market value for the water....I do believe the farmers got it all for free so they could get very rich.... for... how long was that Rocket???

Quote

By the way - did you know farmers pay for the water they get?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The reason they want the water is to grow crops that are only profitable after the federal government pays them subsities, it's nothing more than corporate welfare, for the rich; yes the majority of the money goes to corporate farmers and not family farms.


I always thought those proud right wing farmers detested handouts from the government. If a buisness can not stand up on it's own two feet, then market forces should take over.

If that's the case, give them the water but not the money.

Why? they still could not make money unless they get price supports from the government. The two main crops that leach off the taxpayers in California are cotton and rice, not to mention that they consume the most water. There are three main components to a very large portion of central valley agriculture: Water, Government subsidies and cheap undocumented labor. Remove any one of those and it's no longer economically viable.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Wasn't it the government that built all that infrastructure

Nope. The canal system was initiated by evil corporations. Most of the canals were constructed between the 1870s and 1920s. Not until the 1930's did the federal government move in to "negotiate" riparian rights. In the 1950's, landowners voted for the issuance of bonds in order to buy the water rights from the San Joaquin Canal Company. The landowners then formed the quasi-governmental Central California Irrigation District.

SO it was private industry and private landowners who bought the rights and the land and formed a district to help set up rules between them.

Dams, etc., were then funded by the goverment through the depression era. Nowadays, there is CALFED, which is insolvent and ridiculous.

You know, Jeanne, so much of this is available with simple online searches. These were things that were created by private enterprise. Then government took it over, told them what they could and could not do, etc.

Again, your subjective personal feelings radically conflict with fact. As is usually the case, the way you wanted it to be and the way it was differ.

Note - the levees are a frigging mess right now. Of course, they aren't privately owned anymore. Maintaining the levees has been the political equivalent of maintaining bridges - no funding because you can't name levee maintenance after a politician.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The reason they want the water is to grow crops that are only profitable after the federal government pays them subsities, it's nothing more than corporate welfare, for the rich; yes the majority of the money goes to corporate farmers and not family farms.


I always thought those proud right wing farmers detested handouts from the government. If a buisness can not stand up on it's own two feet, then market forces should take over.

If that's the case, give them the water but not the money.

Why? they still could not make money unless they get price supports from the government. The two main crops that leach off the taxpayers in California are cotton and rice, not to mention that they consume the most water. There are three main components to a very large portion of central valley agriculture: Water, Government subsidies and cheap undocumented labor. Remove any one of those and it's no longer economically viable.

There's a big difference in stopping supporting someone and cutting them off at the knees.

They were paying for the water, but now they won't even sell it to them because they think they're not economically viable.

"We don't think you'll survive, so we won't even sell the raw goods you need to operate."

Talk about a self fulfilling prophecy.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Wasn't it the government that built all that infrastructure

Nope. The canal system was initiated by evil corporations. Most of the canals were constructed between the 1870s and 1920s. Not until the 1930's did the federal government move in to "negotiate" riparian rights. In the 1950's, landowners voted for the issuance of bonds in order to buy the water rights from the San Joaquin Canal Company. The landowners then formed the quasi-governmental Central California Irrigation District.

SO it was private industry and private landowners who bought the rights and the land and formed a district to help set up rules between them.

Dams, etc., were then funded by the goverment through the depression era. Nowadays, there is CALFED, which is insolvent and ridiculous.

You know, Jeanne, so much of this is available with simple online searches. These were things that were created by private enterprise. Then government took it over, told them what they could and could not do, etc.

Again, your subjective personal feelings radically conflict with fact. As is usually the case, the way you wanted it to be and the way it was differ.

Note - the levees are a frigging mess right now. Of course, they aren't privately owned anymore. Maintaining the levees has been the political equivalent of maintaining bridges - no funding because you can't name levee maintenance after a politician.

When did private industry ever contribute to anything even close to bringing water to southern California like the California Aqueduct? The vast majority of central valley water projects are from public works.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Aqueduct

[jumpwally 0]

ok,,so maybe it won't go anywhere,,but who cares ? What would happen in the big picture if it overwhelmingly did happen ?

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[lawrocket 3]

I'm not talking about the California Aqueduct. The California Aqueduct does NOT supply water to the Central Valley. Sure, it runs right through it, but that is water dedicated to Southern California (LA, Santa Barbara, and Inland Empire).

Yes - that aqueduct was built by the government to supply SoCal's water needs. The East Side of the valley is supplied by the Friant-Kern Canal and Madera Canal coming off of Friant Dam (Millerton Lake). That dam was built in the 1940's by the Bureau of Reclamation who still operates it. The water deliveries in the Eastern San Joaquin have not been badly affected.

The West side? Yep. Big problems. The Bureau of Reclamation built and operates the Delta-Mendota Canal. It built it because when it buiolt the Friant dam, the west side of the valley lost its irrigation supply. So the water in IT is supplied by pumping water from the Sacramento Delta.

So, yes. The government built the canal. Why? Because the previous canals were left dry by the government damming up the San Joaquin River and diverting into other canals. And now the government is sayin it can't pump water to the west side because of the Delta Smelt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_smelt#Court_protection

So there is the following situation:
(1) Private industry and landowners build irrigation;
(2) Government steps in to dam river, rendering existing irrigation systems useless;
(3) Government builds new canals to replace what was previously there;
(4) Government shuts down new irrigation because, well, it's new system is endangering fish;
(5) Sen. Feinstein drafts the 2009 San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, which codifies a settlement agreement that would seek to restore the San Joaquin River and limit water supply to farmers;
(6) Last month, Sen. Feinstein announced her opposition to new legislation because it is "dramatic overkill" and would waive environmental protections.

Of course, what is going on is that the Bay Area and Southern California want to decrease the water available to the Central Valley to ensure that there is sufficient water for Norcal activities and SoCal activities. Southern California politicians don't want their water deliveries cut short because a bunch of redneck farmers in the central valley want water to grow crops. And Norcal politicians have to look after their interests.

So the delta smelt means less water is available? The easiest thing to do is to get more water up to Sacramento so Norcal and SoCal can have more. The easiest way to do that is to make sure that the redneck central valley farmers don't have it available by "restoring" the San Joaquin River, having the river flow up to Sacramento, and taking it for themselves.

With things like this it should become fairly easy to see how those from the Central Valley feel hosed. We note that plans are to restore the rivers with water used for Central Valley Agriculture. Senator Feinstein issues press releases, drafts legislation, and otherwise variously shits on the water needs in the Central Valley in order to "restore" the rivers to nature.

But she is in ADAMANT proposal to restore the Hetch Hetchy Valley and the Tuolumne River. Why? Because "The fact of the matter is that California needs every drop of high quality water that it can get."

http://feinstein.senate.gov/05releases/r-hetchhetch2.htm

Yep. River restoration is not a problem when it's the Central Valley Farmers who will suffer. But - when it's HER water? NONONONONO!!!

"There is no question that Hetch Hetchy Valley is a remarkable environmental treasure. But the decision to put up the O’Shaughnessy Dam was made over 80 years ago. To tear it down now simply does not make sense."

On the other hand, Restoring the San Joaquin serves "the two coequal goals of water reliability and ecosystem restoration." http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6bc5c6bb-5056-8059-76d6-449acaa28e1b&Region_id=&Issue_id=

Bearin this in mind, what are your thoughts? Water is the absolute lifeblood of the Central Valley. This year - despite the abundance of water, allocations are 55% of contracted amount for those farmers south of the Scramento delta. Feinstein herself sees a big problem.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=ef4135e0-5056-8059-765d-5fac25b26942&Region_id=&Issue_id=

Said Feinstein, "Here is the problem: when we do see torrential rainstorms, water allocations do not increase. That’s because we lack reservoirs and other infrastructure to store it." Well, Ms. Feinstein, we DO have reservoirs to store it. Problem is that water stored is being diverted.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

Quote

ok,,so maybe it won't go anywhere,,but who cares ? What would happen in the big picture if it overwhelmingly did happen ?

In a fantasy world where this did happen, and let's make no bones about it that the ONLY place it would happen, there would immediately be a huge fight over water rights.

THE reason California is shaped the way it is along the Colorado River is because of water rights. THE reason the Hoover Damn was built is to supply water to California. And there's already going to be a HUGE water rights issue between Las Vegas and California in the not too distant future.

Regardless of what this particular ass clown thinks, the issue isn't morals or gays or illegals or Republicans or whatever the F else he thinks it is, THE issue is water and THE reason this guy isn't going to get his way is because there's no F'in way he's going to be able to split up the water rights.

Ok, so now you're going to say something like, "well, what if water got worked out and blahbity, blah, blah blah?"

Forget it. It's just a pointless exercise.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SpeedRacer 1]

51 states would be a prime number. You'd screw up the stars on the flag.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 3]

Quote

51 states would be a prime number. You'd screw up the stars on the flag.

US Flags with more than 50 stars are already designed should such an occasion ever arise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51st_state

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

If an ugly-ass field of stars like that will result, then I'd have to say no to any partition. And actually, I don't think I want to see the song "Fifty Nifty United States" be superseded.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

Quote

If an ugly-ass field of stars like that will result, then I'd have to say no to any partition. And actually, I don't think I want to see the song "Fifty Nifty United States" be superseded.

Serious question;

Do you think that's maybe why there hasn't been a 51st state yet? People just like the round number and rhyming potential?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[muff528 3]

Quote

51 states would be a prime number. You'd screw up the stars on the flag.

51 is not a prime number. (Anyone who's ever played darts knows that.)