^^^ Go back and check those On The Public Record blog links I posted. I think he/she has got it right. Really all of his/her posts back to February 25 are very salient: http://onthepublicrecord.org/
^^^ Go back and check those On The Public Record blog links I posted. I think he/she has got it right. Really all of his/her posts back to February 25 are very salient: http://onthepublicrecord.org/
the problem with the Ogallala is that it is multi-state, and there is no interstate compact.Quote:
Originally Posted by LightRanger
and FTR, Colorado treats its non-hydrologically connected GW basins in a stupid and short-sighted manner. and for the multi-state ones, it's a race to the bottom, literally.
The 1%'ers in San Diego use an average of 584 gallons of water per day, nearly five times the average for coastal Southern California. It is crazy purple pipe is not required for all irrigation in new developments. Also crazy that they don't find away to get the recycled water to local agriculture, golf courses, and very rich. Seems like a better option than drinking our own waste or spending billions on new projects.
I've heard that many of the valleys districts are older open systems that require quite a large investment to upgrade. One good thing out of all this is that it will strongly drive up incentive to upgrade.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJSapp
Running purple pipe would be one of those projects that would end up costing billions, once you include the costs of upgrading the wastewater plants to produce effluent that is clean enough to put into a purple pipe. Then you have to pump it all the way across metro SD which won't be cheap either. Those 1% types don't exactly live near the sewage treatment plant.Quote:
Originally Posted by 406
There's no easy fix IMO. We, as in all of us, need to appreciate the role that agriculture in California has on our lives. Simply cutting off the tap for ag in Cali is not an option IMO. So what else can we do? I think there is a lot that can be done, but agree that we need to start passing the true cost of water onto the users so that the market can adjust for the scarcity of the resource (i.e., higher priced food, maybe you can't fill your pool up this year, etc.). A few ideas:Quote:
Originally Posted by DJSapp
1. Although currently inefficient I think desal is where it's at for municipal water uses. We'll need to get used to the idea of new power plants, or I really like the mini-nuclear plant idea near desal plants.
2. Stormwater collection - we should be more efficient in dealing with stormwater, it should be trapped in underground reservoirs (think deep tunnel project in Chicago and other munis) for use later on.
3. Everyone needs to cut back on usage.
4. Drink your poo water - yeah, it's not the most ideal situation, but after being treated it's going to be fine to drink and use, get used to it.
Ag is going to have issues for the foreseeable future but building something like a 33-foot diameter water pipeline from the Columbia River down to SoCal ain't happening. There's literally no way it would get through environmental permitting let alone finding the fund to build such a thing. There isn't going to be some mass exodus from Cali, so we all need to get used to the idea of paying more for food from Cali and they need to get comfortable with paying more for their water.
Last I read they already produce more recycled water than is used and a bunch gets dumped in the ocean.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJSapp
Below is a great example of fail. The red circled development is all new within the last few years, hundreds of 1-2 million dollar homes with no purple pipe. I know for a fact that there is purple pipe at Cypress Canyon Park. Seems it wouldn't have cost that much to have it run across the street.
Attachment 165887
[QUOTE=DJSapp;. Only their own competition controls the price, not the consumer.[/QUOTE]
You really might want to research that a little.....here's a hint, Chicago board of Trade.
For all non registered crops, most if not all are grown under contract, especially veggies, and that price is NOT set be the farmer, it is set by the processor. If you do not like the price, find another crop to grow.
That works for one season when farmers are already locked in prior to knowing that the cost of water is going up.Quote:
Originally Posted by farmguy
...and then what happens when nobody will sign the contracts in the central valley for the next season because they'd all be operating at a loss? The commodity market explodes and the price shoots through the roof due to no supply (i.e. inelastic market, people gotta eat). Yes, the produce contracts are set annually, but my point was that if we were to shove the full price of water onto the farmers, they would push the price back into the market. It would lag as contracts expire, but they can't indefinitely operate at a loss without pushing back on the contracts. The commodity crops that can be grown elsewhere will diminish (corn, soy), but the CA specific performers (citrus, strawberries, avocados, etc) will see big price hikes.
That's a bummer. Perhaps the pipeline isn't sized well enough to sufficiently serve the new development, but it's more likely that the plan and developer were short sighted and they just didn't tie the neighborhood in. There are also some challenges with bringing purple pipe to residential from a safety standpoint, but that is a more localized specific issue (i.e. what level of treatment do they achieve,. is it ok for kids to run through the sprinklers, give fido some hose water, etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by 406
I just bought strawberries from California. 2 pounds for $3. Each one took 0.4 gallons of water to grow.
Each lb or each berry?Quote:
Originally Posted by char
Per berry according to some.
But here's the problem, almost every farm has or needs a line of cash to operate on and it needs to be paid or renewed every year, processor payments are 18-24 months out. So here's what we do, in order to get cash to operate for 12 months we have to show the bank ability to pay off debt and thast done with signed contracts, without them, no operating loan and most guys have equipment, land, labor that never stops and runs in the millions for the big guys. If you do not get a contract, all your notes get called and you close shop. period! For the processor,s, they can scale back processing lines, bring in crops from local areas and the can always find just enough farmers to sigh to get by till the next year. Farms are not mobile, processor and their plants are, they will close and move if they find better deals elsewhere. So, let the farmers go on strike is usually next right? Nope, a organized strike will bring the Feds in like a ton of shit...restriction of interstate trade clause and almost every crop cross's a state line. Been tried, farmers jailed for it. Shit flows downhill and farmers are at ground level. Profits margins are in the 2-3% most years. I wish there was an easy solution but food is very protected for the very reason that a cheap and reliable food supply will always be the most important commodity a nation should relie on.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJSapp
Piping the polar icecap runoff in the Chukchi Sea to SoCal and the SW will prevent islands in Micronesia from becoming reefs.
and full of pesticides but that's for another threadQuote:
Originally Posted by char
The dose makes the poison. Nothing there to be of any concern... but it does help sell organic as fear sells.Quote:
Originally Posted by KQ
Yo. Charging more money for a life-sustaining finite resource is not the solution. You chicken fucking farmers should realize the dilemma and solution. Stop growing such water-intensive crops.
http://www.econlife.com/wp-content/u...rsty-Crops.jpg
It's all about the aquifers and desertification. Just wait till the NaCl rises to the top. No food for you..
That's why the pistachios go in. Because the almonds start struggling and don't produce enough $$$$
Rice growers to plant crop despite water-purchase offers
Tim Hearden
Capital Press
Published:
April 1, 2015 9:21AM
Rice growers in California are expected to plant 408,000 acres this year -- only a slight decrease considering the lingering water uncertainties in a fourth straight year of drought and an offer by urban districts to purchase water for as much as $700 per acre-foot.
WILLOWS, Calif. — Most rice growers with water apparently plan to plant a sizable crop despite offers from urban districts to purchase their water for as much as $700 per acre-foot.
California farmers told the National Agricultural Statistics Service they intend to seed rice on 408,000 acres, or 6 percent below the acreage seeded in 2014, the agency stated in a field plantings report released March 31.
A 6 percent decrease might be considered fairly meager considering the lingering uncertainty for many growers as to the quantity and timing of water availability amid a fourth straight year of drought.
Larry Maben, a grower here, said area farmers have been told to expect 75 percent of normal allocations, though their water provider — the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District — is still working out the details of deliveries. Maben is considering making up the shortfall with well water, though he’s wary of the drought’s impact on aquifers.
“I’m sure it would be pretty tempting (to sell water) because you can get a pretty high price for water,” he said. “I think I can still get more from farming rice.”
Among urban water agencies eying farmers’ allocations is the Los Angeles-based Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which decided in early March to buy up to 200,000 acre-feet of Sacramento Valley water in 2015 and to secure conveyance and storage agreements with the state Department of Water Resources and other water districts.
The going price for water is about $700 per acre-foot — nearly triple the rate in 2010, when the district purchased nearly 90,000 acre-feet at a cost of about $250 per acre-foot, said Bob Muir, a Metropolitan Water District spokesman. An acre-foot is enough water to serve two family households for a year.
However, the availability of water has been complicated by the prospect of reduced allocations, Muir said. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation officials have said they’re unsure of whether they’ll be able to send settlement contractors along the Sacramento River their full 75 percent dry-year allotments, and State Water Project contractors expect to only receive 20 percent of normal supplies.
“No pun intended but the market may be drying up,” Muir said. “They might be seeing reduced allocations. We’re not sure how this is going to actually develop with each passing dry day. It’s going to be quite a challenge to move any water this year.”
Further, many water districts have restrictions on how much water can be transferred — particularly in dry years, said Charley Mathews, a Marysville, Calif., grower and USA Rice Federation executive committee member.
“It could be that there won’t be an opportunity to sell water,” Mathews said.
The Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, which covers about 175,000 acres of the mid-Sacramento Valley, caps the amount of land that can be fallowed for water transfers at 20,000 acres districtwide, general manager Thad Bettner said. Any more than that would begin to affect the local economy as well as habitat for migratory birds and endangered species, he said.
“I think we’ll be close to” the maximum this year, Bettner said. “This year is one of the most challenging water years we’ve ever had, so we’re trying to use all the options that are available.”
The district prioritizes transfers to other agricultural water users over municipal and industrial users, he said. But all in all, leaving some water in the river for transfers can help the district maintain levels needed for fish while diverting some for irrigation, he said.
Some fields will be fallowed because of a lack of water. About 140,000 acres of rice went unplanted last year because of water shortfalls — a 25 percent decrease from the 2013 crop, according to the California Farm Bureau Federation.
Rice is among many California commodities that will see declines in planted acreage this year, according to NASS’ prospective plantings report. Among other field crops:
• Corn growers expect to plant 430,000 acres in the Golden State this year, a 17 percent drop from 2014.
• California’s expected 1.23 million acres of productive hay ground is down 11 percent from last year as hay shortages could persist throughout the West. Nevada’s anticipated 340,000 acres of hay would be 21 percent less than a year ago.
• The 430,000 acres of winter wheet seeded in California is down 7 percent from last year, though another 60,000 acres have been seeded to Durum wheat — 71 percent above the amount planted in 2014, according to NASS.
• Cotton acreage in California will consist of 110,000 acres of American Pima and 45,000 acres of Upland cotton, each down more than 20 percent from the acreage seeded last year.
• Plantings of dry edible beans (50,000 acres), oats (120,000 acres) and sugar beets (25,000 acres) will see increases this year of 4 percent, 9 percent and 3 percent, respectively.
This all part of a new natural cycle that allows the top six inches of pesticide and fertilizer residue to dry up and blow away.
That may be the case for some, but generally speaking I'm going to have to call BS. Interest rates are literally half of what they were in 2007 and even less than that going back decades, so based on relying on huge loans that would mean many were expanding on even more land while operating on a loss for what they already had. The math doesn't add up if they could make it work with 6-10% loans.Quote:
Originally Posted by farmguy
I just can't believe that California is just now getting around to implementing watering restrictions.
Seriously, that should have been done 2 years ago.
Denver water prohibits us from watering during daylight hours, etc, even during years of water surplus
They've been on and off over the past few years. This will be the third or fourth straight summer.Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF is dat
Once Cali experiences even worse droughts, which no doubt are going to be in Cali's future; the Cali people will exodus. Besides in a few years skiing will also be extinct in the state of NorCal...Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush
"Rebellions of the belly are the worst" - Francis BaconQuote:
Originally Posted by farmguy
Or, in other words, its one thing to ration showers and lawn watering but when you start rationing bread, the shit hits the fan.
I just had to link this article. This should explain why no one wants to send water to CA. And, its also more proof that societal burden sharing simply does not apply to the 1%. In brief, the average daily residential consumption for californians is appx.89 gal. In some municipalities it is below 50 gal. And then there are the communities of the privileged like Bermuda Dunes where they use 379 gal per day and are so insulated from reality that their water usage has defiantly increased almost 40 gal per day during the drought. But don't worry, if 1%er luxuries use up all fresh CA water, their political servants are coming with plans to tax the middle class to build processing plants so you can drink your own poop water. Sorry, CA, if your house was in order, maybe someone outside of CA would have some sympathy. As I previously alluded, the rest of America has an obvious stake in the affordable food coming out of the Central Valley, not your golf courses. Of which you have around 900. If you can't prioritize residential consumption....tough shit. At a fundamental political level, CA "needs" this crisis.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ornia-dry.html
In places like Los Angeles and the Gay Area, this would probably be welcome news, as most of the people residing there seem to suffer gluten intolerance.Quote:
Originally Posted by neckdeep
Kalifornia farm exports are supported at both the state and federal levels as a means to help balance our trade deficit. Or so I've read.Quote:
Originally Posted by neckdeep
FIFY. People that reside in water-poor climates like SoCal and AZ need to learn the hard way.Quote:
Originally Posted by neckdeep
Has anybody said, hey, how about Colorado. Remember the drought around 97 to 02 or close to those years? Everybody with their hands in the air and wondering, how will we ever wash our cars again? But, as always, it passed, somewhat, and that city stopped carrying on any meaningful conversation about conservation and just hit the gas pedal on all sorts of development, everywhere. The front range is simply too big, and getting bigger. But, I guess it will take shutting down all of those micro breweries to get most to notice.
What does it balance out? All the Chinese produce at Whole Foods?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva
Quote:
Originally Posted by neckdeep
I guess that proposal to pump all the sewage in LA up to the desert so it filters through the ground and becomes drinking water again is back on the table.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
You and I have very different Whole Foods.Quote:
Originally Posted by splat
The drought in colorado was never as bad as what California is facing currently. Not even in the same ballpark, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Denver actually has continued to carry on meaningful conversations about water conservation, despite your uninformed opinion.
While we haven't had any mandatory watering restrictions for a few years now, denver water still creates water use guidelines / restrictions that residents adhere to (only water your lawn 3 days a week, never during the daytime, etc etc)
These guidelines get mailed out to residents every spring. Denver water also runs a huge advocacy campaign in the summertime about conserving water. You see the orange ads everywhere.... freeway billboards, busses, newspapers, etc.
Furthermore, denver water customers have reduced their average consumption by 14% in the past 2 years alone.
And, If you compare current per capita water usage in denver to the early 2000s, per capita consumption has been reduced by more than 20%.
So, once again Benny, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
Good god.
Edit to add: just looked it up and Colorado still doesn't even use all of the 3.88 million acre feet it is allotted from the Colorado river.
It never ceases to amaze me how you can continuously be so smug and such a fucking dumbass in the same breath.Quote:
Originally Posted by BmillsSkier
What the Whole Foods PR guy says...http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog...china-possible
Over the past many years Whole Foods doubled down on Chinese produce and everyone got burned paying for organic that clearly wasn't. If you did some googling, there's just shitloads of info out there to find so you don't have to out yourself as such a presumptuous ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF is dat
The key here, and my point is, "per capita". As long as the young and bright and fit continue to flood into the front range, there is another catastrophe waiting that will be worse than the last. Of course this isn't as bad as California. That's an excuse. What, do you think you live in a wet place. Wake the fuck up. It's dry, always has been dry and brown. You think that whole fixing leaks and replacing toilets will make up for all those five bedroom houses that have sprung up and down 25, all the new, hip rental towers and lower shit out further? It is like that Whole Foods bullshit where the liberal bourgeoise feels better by buying socially and environmentally conscious overpriced stuff, and then carts it out to their fucking trucks and SUVs for the half hour drive home.
There will be a reckoning. Hide your head in your ass as much as you want with your so called conservation, but you should watch California and São Paulo and Saudia Arabia and many other places that are going dry not because of drought, per se, but too many humans sucking it out of Rivers and groundwater.
Have you seen the bathtub ring on Lake Powell? Party over, dude. Yeah, sure, right, you're under the allotment for the Colorado. What politician determined that proper amount?
Edit: it ain't just the front range
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14039424
Actually, Colorado is quite green right now, and will be even greener once May comes around. If we get some decent rains, denver metro will stay green for most of the summer. Same as every summer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Yes, I have seen the bathtub ring around lake Powell, which happens to be in another state and is therefore irrelevant to our discussion about Colorado.
What politician determined the allotment that Colorado gets from the Colorado river? Something called the Colorado River Compact. Ever heard of it? It's been in existence for 100 years & Colorado currently uses less than the 3.88 million acre feet of water that it is allocated annually from the Colorado River Compact.
You really are fucking clueless. Please don't come back to colorado next year and for the love of god stop cunting up the Colorado weather discussion thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF is dat
You officially became stupid with that one. Do you do drugs along with your excessive drinking? Get out of the fast lane, young man, before you turn into fastfred.
Hey, I did want to thank you for the gopro video you posted showing us what you do on powder days. It's a gem. Enjoy the green world of Denver. Hehe. Green. Have you ever been to a green, wet place?
farming is farming the water is used to grow crops.
w/ 1/2 the snowfall i kinda doubt our irragation waters gonna last long this season so the garden is gonna cost me more this year.
but at least municiplalities and some homeowners are gonna pull their heads outta the ass
and rethink the wisdom of the stupidity that is watering and growing fuckin grass lawns and parkways
a stupid vanity biodiversity fuckages and waste of a precious recourse