Time for water rationing !!

**David Lee** · 04-01-2015, 07:18 PM

For us peasants , anyways . Please continue to grow your Cashews in the Desert ....

http://news.yahoo.com/california-res...232411385.html

This is going to be the last link I share here in the Conservation section . I've reached a point of despondence about our environmental issues , so rather than keep my bitching and whining up .... I'm just going to shut up . What's the old adage ?? "If you don't have anything GOOD to say "....

Cheers to all !

D.~

**SeanO** · 04-01-2015, 07:29 PM

That is bad news for our fish and us regular Joes.

I say keep posting up the news though, you never know who may "get mad as hell and won't take it anymore"...

**Lew Riffle** · 04-02-2015, 06:56 AM

David......despair solves nothing just like doing nothing and letting those that do something get their way.

**johnsquires** · 04-02-2015, 12:25 PM

Please keep posting, David.
I understand your frustration. I'm presently reading a book call The Sixth Extinction, which brings out the same emotions in me. Reminds me of lyrics from the song Vincent: "They would not listen, they're not listening still, perhaps they never will." Or maybe they're listening but issues like the environment get trumped by such things as, oh, I don't know, money.
But on things of such importance (especially to our kids and their kids), we should never give up.

**James W** · 04-02-2015, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by johnsquires

Please keep posting, David.
I understand your frustration. I'm presently reading a book call The Sixth Extinction, which brings out the same emotions in me. Reminds me of lyrics from the song Vincent: "They would not listen, they're not listening still, perhaps they never will." Or maybe they're listening but issues like the environment get trumped by such things as, oh, I don't know, money.
But on things of such importance (especially to our kids and their kids), we should never give up.

An excellent book, but you're right, made me more than a little despondent.

**David Lee** · 04-05-2015, 12:27 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/gov-jerry-brow...181337768.html

The Governor is hopelessly out of touch with reality .

D.~

**The Arborist** · 04-06-2015, 05:34 PM

Farming is lumped in with mining and only accounts for about 2% of California's GDP. For him to say farmers are essential is just a lie. When it comes to water usage, residential use accounts for 20% of water usage. Farmers consume 80%. An industry worth less than 2% of our GDP (once you remove mining) gets 80% of our water. So, we have to reduce our water by 25%, which translates into an overall reduction of 5% gross (basically pointless). Meanwhile, farmers can continue to steal 80% of our water to grow crops and pocket the profits, in a state that is inherently, not meant for growing crops... at least not the type they like to grow.

It takes one gallon of water to grow a single almond. 3 gallons to grow a single tomato. Farmers can continue to grow almonds and tomatoes without regulation, but Gov. Brown thinks you should not take more than a 5 minute shower. A 5 minute shower uses about 10 gallons of water, or the equivalent of 10 almonds.

Next time you travel on the 5 freeway any where in central California, hopefully those reading this post will realize how absurd all those stupid signs are the farmers put up concerning their so called water problem.

**Darian** · 04-06-2015, 11:30 PM

Hmmm,.... The percentages cited for agriculture/mining vs municipal water uses in the article are the estimate of water delivered/used in a normal water year thru the CVP/SWP. Also, I've seen estimates that include industrial uses, non-mining activities (fracking, computer chip manufacturing, development, etc.) in that 80% figure. In this and the last drought years, the allocation of water for agriculture from CVP/SWP has been substantially reduced. So, they're primarily getting their water by pumping from groundwater sources or purchases of water from willing sellers. Until very recently info on ground water pumping was not available for inclusion in any allocation. It has been reported that water usage by municipalities only decreased by approximately 10% due to voluntary use restrictions over the last year. With the fallowing of some acreage and reduced reliance on SWP/CVP for delivery of water in mind, it seems reasonable that the actual ratio for water use between the two (Ag vs Muni) is not nearly as great as the 80% to 20% cited in the article. At times in the past, I've quoted those figures myself in discussion but I don't think that's accurate now.

Regardless of the % contribution to the states GDP, I don't really see how we can tell a farmer what to grow on his land, whether owned or leased. Growers get to choose whatever crop they want to produce. It's strictly a business decision and, after all, unless they're a Non-profit corp., the whole idea is to make a profit.

In this instance, I think the governors reasoning was correct. What's the point in placing restrictions on water deliveries from the SWP/CVP when the allocation is already next to nothing (per CA DWR). I agree that the signs along I-5 down thru the valley are absurd but they do serve to send a political message by growers.

Why not examine why farmers/growers receive so many subsidies to produce crops at a competitive price that're in surplus world-wide or to support prices??? Why not try to influence growers to treat polluted Ag water run-off or use recycled water for irrigation?? Why not inform ourselves about the BDCP and either oppose or support the project??? Well,.... I guess I'm preaching to the choir....

**JasonB** · 04-07-2015, 10:52 AM

Good points Darian. I tend to agree with this line of thinking, and I do think that we need to be careful about direct opposition to "agriculture" in general. It would likely turn out to be a political mistake if we do, imo. About the only thing I differ on is the statement of not being able to "tell a farmer what to grow". I do think that it would be entirely reasonable to limit/restrict/regulate crops via water consumption limits, at least in terms of drought situations... but yes, your point that there are likely other ways to have bigger impacts is right on the money.

I personally don't think that debating this issue on financial contribution is really the point; in other words regardless of % of GDP of any one interest, water is water and there are too many interests in "using" that water. I don't really care if agriculture contributes 2% or 80% to the GDP, there needs to be the same level of scrutiny over water consumption, and waste/misuse/inefficient uses should ALL be reduced. Likewise, regardless of who uses XX % of total water consumption, I do believe that every one of us has the ability and the responsibility to do our part in cutting back (especially when times are thin).

While Browns "Emergency Action" falls far short of what a lot of us would like to see, I do think it's important nonetheless to issue a bit of a wake up call to the masses. One of the big things that I think will prove key to the whole situation is a greater appreciation and respect for our water and how our collective habits are not sustainable. Perhaps a few million people taking a shorter shower isn't the biggest impact in actual, real time water use reduction, but changing the mindset of the population as a whole would be huge for long term sustainable water usage imo (particularly as it would apply to future policy changes, and even appointment/election to key positions).

My only hope here is that there is a big shift in the general mentality about water soon. A few big snow years would help too of course... though I think this is essentially only buying us a little more time. Unfortunately, we seem to need things to get really desperate before we take meaningful action... apparently we're getting closer to that point?
JB