Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 15:24:17 GMT -5
Being a farmer I will say that I sure use a lot of water. LOTS. Can't help it, plants and ground are very thirsty. Water pump for plants is on separate meter from house well. Easy to compare. Amazes me the difference. Larger operations with 6 and 8 inch diesel pumps, they really throw water. Especially in hot arid locations. Not exactly fair to compare water lily production to alfalfa either. Plus you have free unlimited water. That fact alone allows for your massive use.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,563
|
Post by jamesp on May 28, 2015 17:25:48 GMT -5
Being a farmer I will say that I sure use a lot of water. LOTS. Can't help it, plants and ground are very thirsty. Water pump for plants is on separate meter from house well. Easy to compare. Amazes me the difference. Larger operations with 6 and 8 inch diesel pumps, they really throw water. Especially in hot arid locations. Not exactly fair to compare water lily production to alfalfa either. Plus you have free unlimited water. That fact alone allows for your massive use. Even with all the water I have it still gets used at incredible rates. June-Sept the well gets used a lot, even with 3 creeks on the property. 500,000 gallon pond always runs low in summer. Field farming is a real water hog. Can not imagine how much water a 1000 acre field would require in dry hot conditions.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,563
|
Post by jamesp on May 28, 2015 17:51:16 GMT -5
This guy commented on this article Rich. Pointing out upstream water use and claim rights. Policies and Arizona/SW desert. Seems like a good outlook on the issues to be concerned from a broad outlook of the water use from the Colorado. I am a great fan of ProPublica but this article is seriously off the mark and both misrepresents and obscures the problems. The most important of these is western water law, which emanated from placer mining rather than from farming, and which gives rights based on first to claim rather than on best use. Read 'Cadillac Desert'. Water rights turned into power; power dictates politics. The idea that, if senior water rights holders did not have Federal subsidies for cotton, there would be enough water is ridiculous. If it were not cotton, it would be another crop; if it were not a senior water right holder, it would be a junior right holder. Water rights far exceed the existing water. Then, add the fact that ground water was categorized separately and, at first, not understood as connected to surface water, and you begin to get a better picture. Finally, your story focuses on Arizona with the most failed water project and with the most junior claim on the river because of a bargain it made. The water shortage, which has indeed been coming for decades, is from unfortunate polices, with fooish, self-serving and often corrupt policies and actions piled on top, but the fundamental error was and is treating the southwest desert as a greenhouse with water on demand for farming and other human uses.
|
|
spiritstone
Cave Dweller
Member since August 2014
Posts: 2,061
|
Post by spiritstone on May 28, 2015 18:04:25 GMT -5
Sounds like you all have a new ball game regarding waterways etc...
Obama admin asserts dominion over creeks, streams, wetlands, ditches — even big puddles
President Obama’s administration on Wednesday claimed dominion over all of America’s streams, creeks, rills, ditches, brooks, rivulets, burns, tributaries, criks, wetlands — perhaps even puddles — in a sweeping move to assert unilateral federal authority.
The Environmental Protection Agency, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, says it has the authority to control all waterways within the United States — and will exercise that authority. “We’re finalizing a clean water rule to protect the streams and the wetlands that one in three Americans rely on for drinking water. And we’re doing that without creating any new permitting requirements and maintaining all previous exemptions and exclusions,” EPA head Gina McCarthy told reporters Wednesday.
The moves comes as part of the Clean Water Act and federal officials say they are simply trying to help businesses comply with regulations.
“This rule is about clarification, and in fact, we’re adding exclusions for features like artificial lakes and ponds, water-filled depressions from constructions and grass swales,” McCarthy said. “This rule will make it easier to identify protected waters and will make those protections consistent with the law as well as the latest peer-reviewed science. This rule is based on science.”
The Supreme Court has twice questioned the breadth of powers decreed under the Clean Water Act, prompting Wednesday’s actions McCarthy claimed the new powers would “not interfere with private property rights or address land use.”
“It does not regulate any ditches unless they function as tributaries. It does not apply to groundwater or shallow subsurface water, copper tile drains or change policy on irrigation or water transfer.”
Not surprisingly, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, THE top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, loves the plan.
“The Obama administration listened to all perspectives and developed a final rule that will help guarantee safe drinking water supplies for American families and businesses and restore much-needed certainty, consistency, and effectiveness to the Clean Water Act,” she said in a statement.
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise said:
“EPA’s attempt to redefine ‘navigable waterways’ to include every drainage ditch, backyard pond, and puddle is a radical regulatory overreach that threatens to take away the rights of property owners and will lead to costly litigation and lost jobs. The House is committed to fighting back against this radical policy, which is why we passed bipartisan legislation earlier this month to stop the EPA in their tracks from moving forward with this misguided proposal. It’s time for President Obama’s EPA to abandon these radical proposals, all in the name of protecting wetlands and waterways, that instead will only lead to more American jobs being shipped overseas at the expense of the American economy.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on May 28, 2015 19:05:19 GMT -5
Read that comment when I read the article, James. Thought it was a waste of space then. Still do.
I am a great fan of . . . but . . .
Sure you are, pal. : )
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,563
|
Post by jamesp on May 28, 2015 19:09:37 GMT -5
spiritstone, the EPA pretty much has had their nose in every creek around here for 20 years. Land disturbances that muddy any size creek around here will have to be spoken for in the form of stiff fines. The trick is to not have any neighbors downstream that can report it. or eliminate them before they can report it LOL. It is sorta the reverse of a water shortage, the water delivers the evidence. And some one of those down stream land owners will sure turn you in. Flowing water is a target, whether it dries up or has quality issues. It crosses various land owners and that creates issues. Most lakes and ponds are built illegally and unreported. The pond builders around here will build you a pond if it cannot be seen and he knows the land owners down stream(or there are none). A clear example of regulation. Govt hands tied on AG ponds, liberal laws protect farmers and their rights to holding water.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,563
|
Post by jamesp on May 28, 2015 19:14:12 GMT -5
Read that comment when I read the article, James. Thought it was a waste of space then. Still do. I am a great fan of . . . but . . .
Sure you are, pal. : ) "I am a great fan of ProPublica but this article is seriously off the mark and both misrepresents and obscures the problems." Never heard of ProPublica. OK, drop the remark about ProPublica... This is the part that makes sense: The most important of these is western water law, which emanated from placer mining rather than from farming, and which gives rights based on first to claim rather than on best use. Read 'Cadillac Desert'. Water rights turned into power; power dictates politics. The idea that, if senior water rights holders did not have Federal subsidies for cotton, there would be enough water is ridiculous. If it were not cotton, it would be another crop; if it were not a senior water right holder, it would be a junior right holder. Water rights far exceed the existing water. Then, add the fact that ground water was categorized separately and, at first, not understood as connected to surface water, and you begin to get a better picture. Finally, your story focuses on Arizona with the most failed water project and with the most junior claim on the river because of a bargain it made. The water shortage, which has indeed been coming for decades, is from unfortunate polices, with fooish, self-serving and often corrupt policies and actions piled on top, but the fundamental error was and is treating the southwest desert as a greenhouse with water on demand for farming and other human uses. Emphasis on this statement : "the fundamental error was and is treating the southwest desert as a greenhouse with water on demand for farming and other human uses" This one too: " Water rights far exceed the existing water." Cotton vs wheat is negligible issue other than illustrating messed up policies.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on May 28, 2015 19:30:41 GMT -5
The water shortages that have brought California, Arizona and other Western states to the edge of an environmental cliff have been attributed to a historic climate event — a dry spell that experts worry could be the worst in 1,000 years. But an examination by ProPublica shows that the scarcity of water is as much a man-made crisis as a natural one, the result of decades of missteps and misapprehensions by governments and businesses as they have faced surging demand driven by a booming population.
The federal subsidies that prop up cotton farming in Arizona are just one of myriad ways that policymakers have refused, or been slow to reshape laws to reflect the West’s changing circumstances. Provisions in early–20th-century water-use laws that not only permit but also compel farmers and others to use more water than they need are another. “Use It or Lose It” is the cynical catch phrase for one of those policies. Few crises have been more emphatically and presciently predicted. Almost 150 years ago, John Wesley Powell, the geologist and explorer, traveled the Colorado River in an effort to gauge America’s chances for developing its arid western half. His report to Congress reached a chastening conclusion: There wasn’t enough water to support significant settlement.
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on May 28, 2015 19:39:23 GMT -5
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,563
|
Post by jamesp on May 29, 2015 6:04:46 GMT -5
parfive-Scrutiny on the water loving cotton is a start. Reviewing poor policy another good thing. Watching what happens in Arizona and with Lake Mead will likely be an eye opener. They will likely be the first to suffer. Or maybe California. not sure. One thing for sure, desperation created by a water shortage will test authority and people's behavior. People were running around opening fire hydrants in the middle of the night to fill downstream ponds in Atlanta during it's drought. Pump sales hit an all time high, home owners were using them to draw water out of creeks and rivers to water their lawns and fields. Creeks that flowed thru or adjacent to them on their own property. Had the drought continued, the govt was going to regulate that practice. Regulate what people are doing on their own property. But effecting the property owner downstream of them. Even James drilled some wells using this rig on my property and several of my friend's and brother's property right in suburbia. A mini driller: Well drillers made out like bandits. Some wells in urban areas were illegally drilled, not allowed by ordinances and zoning restrictions. Again, govt dictating what land owners do with their own property. So all of these metered allotments of water out west and the sophisticated canal systems will likely be placed under serious govt. management. I suppose Federal govt., state levels having bias. Canal system seems like a delicate system. Vulnerable to theft and vandalism, covering a large area and passing thru many property owners land. Old laws re allowance will have to be changed. Some are in for hard times.
|
|
spiritstone
Cave Dweller
Member since August 2014
Posts: 2,061
|
Post by spiritstone on May 30, 2015 20:18:56 GMT -5
Yikes! Apocalypse Soon: California’s Snowpack Is Gone This movie San Andreas opened Friday, depicting the destruction of San Francisco and Los Angeles as mega-earthquakes rip apart California. The same day, a real-life catastrophe quietly unfolded high in the Sierra Nevada mountain range that runs parallel to the San Andreas Fault: The drought-stricken state’s snowpack disappeared. The California Department of Water Resources reported Friday that mountain snowpack across the state was 0 percent of normal for May 29. That means that even before summer begins, there will essentially be no more of the crucial mountain snowmelt that California relies on to replenish the streams, rivers, and reservoirs that supply water to cities and farms. Sure, there are still patches of snow here and there around the high Sierras. But the “snow water equivalent”—the volume of water that would be produced by melting a depth of snow—is 0 percent, according to measurements taken at 98 stations by the water resources department. When the snowpack hit a record low of 6 percent of normal on April 1, California Gov. Jerry Brown issued the first statewide mandatory water restrictions, ordering cities to cut water consumption by 25 percent. A week ago, some California farmers agreed to voluntarily reduce their water use by 25 percent, a sign of just how desperate the Golden State’s situation has become. With the snowpack now gone and California entering its fourth year of drought, such cutbacks may be just the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by snowmom on May 31, 2015 4:50:28 GMT -5
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,563
|
Post by jamesp on May 31, 2015 5:57:52 GMT -5
Atlanta had a drought in 2007-2008. Managed what water I had and all worked out OK. But in 2011, a freak occurrence happened at my place, the rain dodged me for 3 months March - June in 2011 and I was forced to drill a well. We were already in a medium drought, but circumstances created a short 'no water' period that would have destroyed my crop. Ran the new well for 22 days to catch up. I was lucky. Neighbors 1-2 miles away never had a problem with their crops.
There are large minimum water requirements, all it takes is 2-4 weeks of no water and crops can be destroyed.
Mother nature is totally in control of precipitation and heat levels for the most part. Add the stress of a drought and every move she makes controls water availability. Water is like money, when you are out you are out. But no way to get a loan for more.
There is claims that precipitation may not feed the needs in the SW US. That ice pack water is the biggest problem.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 4, 2015 1:31:19 GMT -5
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,563
|
Post by jamesp on Jun 4, 2015 8:10:56 GMT -5
"In February 2014, Mulroy retired, saying she was tired of fighting Las Vegas’ water battle, which she described as constantly in crisis. She nominated as her successor her senior deputy general manager, John Entsminger, a lawyer experienced with interstate Colorado River negotiations and known to be a supporter of Mulroy’s water management strategy." She is passing the buck to an excellent lawyer. Smart move honey(picking a lawyer). Like all govt., screw things up and have absolutely no liability. Probably retired with salary. Living off casino kick backs received over many years. Remember John Jones ? Masses easily led to slaughter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2015 9:53:01 GMT -5
The water shortages that have brought California, Arizona and other Western states to the edge of an environmental cliff have been attributed to a historic climate event — a dry spell that experts worry could be the worst in 1,000 years. But an examination by ProPublica shows that the scarcity of water is as much a man-made crisis as a natural one, the result of decades of missteps and misapprehensions by governments and businesses as they have faced surging demand driven by a booming population.
Man-made - have a cow patty From Coyote Blog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2015 10:07:39 GMT -5
The California Department of Water Resources reported Friday that mountain snowpack across the state was 0 percent of normal for May 29. That means that even before summer begins, there will essentially be no more of the crucial mountain snowmelt that California relies on to replenish the streams, rivers, and reservoirs that supply water to cities and farms. 0% of normal? Bullsnot. There was plenty of skiing in the Sierras last winter. To say snowpack was 0% is to imply there was zero snow. Don't editors put any scrutiny into the things their reporters write?
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Jun 4, 2015 10:13:49 GMT -5
Can there also be a looming Groundwater crisis that could affect Florida and the Midwest States. We've seen and heard of the sink holes. Is there a chance of running out of groundwater any time soon?
Charlie
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 4, 2015 10:17:35 GMT -5
HTF could James not remember Jim? : )
|
|
spiritstone
Cave Dweller
Member since August 2014
Posts: 2,061
|
Post by spiritstone on Jun 4, 2015 10:38:25 GMT -5
The California Department of Water Resources reported Friday that mountain snowpack across the state was 0 percent of normal for May 29. That means that even before summer begins, there will essentially be no more of the crucial mountain snowmelt that California relies on to replenish the streams, rivers, and reservoirs that supply water to cities and farms. 0% of normal? Bullsnot. There was plenty of skiing in the Sierras last winter. To say snowpack was 0% is to imply there was zero snow. Doesn't editors put any scrutiny into the things their reporters write? But the “snow water equivalent”—the volume of water that would be produced by melting a depth of snow—is 0 percent and this is for may not all winter.
|
|