SEARCH BLOG: H2O
A few years ago as I viewed the devastation that was California agriculture, I wrote the following:
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 05, 2009H2O Worries A Real WorryAs I drove through wine country north of San Francisco yesterday, I could see that conditions were much better due to the very wet 2011. Regardless, there is still a water war waging in California and it seems to be the GOP taking the side of agriculture and the Democratic Party taking the side of the smelt. Why? Because California can't extract enough water from the ground for its needs and it can't depend on wet years to supply enough reserve for the dry years [image from SFGate].
I'm not sure why anyone from California would want to suppress one of their great economic engines by restricting needed water from agriculture. Just as the Democrats are happy to advise coal-burning states to clean up their act or mandate new technology for automotive manufacturers, why don't they mandate that water for California cities comes after water for agriculture and smelt... and don't offer an alternative. That would be a far more effective way of driving out humans from those concrete heat sinks.
Perhaps they can just buy their water from Israel which has figured out how to make their desert nation a water exporter. Better yet, simply follow the example of Israel.
Quit exporting your water costs to other states... and save your agriculture in the process.
Of course, why force technology on California cities? Isn't it cheaper to do other things... like take water from agriculture or those darling little smelt?
But as Peter Gleick said in 2006, “Desalination will be part of California’s water future, but the future’s not here yet,” said Dr. Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute. “Most California communities can find additional water, quicker and for less money, by improving efficiency and management.”
Say, isn't that the same ethically-challenged Dr. Gleick that stole documents and made up communications supposedly from the Heartland Institute trying to discredit is as a source of climate research?
Kind of makes you wonder what his agenda here was. Was that "efficiency and management" simply diverting water from agriculture? Or was it more about restricting human presence in California than being honest about alternatives? You know, herd all of the humans into the cities and let the agricultural efforts literally dry up?
Nah, that would be something a radical environmental organization might try to do.
Hey, if California is so willing to force their ideas of desirable technology on the rest of the nation, isn't it time for California to dance to its own tunes?