The drought !

[old pudd fisher]

Used peanut butter for bait that time. Shot a few with my pellet gun also, The side yard is free of excessive foliage now so I have very few these days I had skunks and raccoons back their too. One time I seen a skunk walk under my truck early one dark morning as I was getting ready to go to work, I had to spray him with the garden hose till he went away.

[DockRat]

Interesting Read !!!


No Farmers do not use 80% of California's water.

The statistic is manufactured by environmentalists to distract from the incredible damage their policies have caused.


http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ref_map=%5B%5D

[DockRat]

For you guys that don't like to click on links. DR

by DEVIN NUNES April 14, 2015 12:45 PM

The statistic is manufactured by environmentalists to distract from the incredible damage their policies have caused. As the San Joaquin Valley undergoes its third decade of government-induced water shortages, the media suddenly took notice of the California water crisis after Governor Jerry Brown announced statewide water restrictions. In much of the coverage, supposedly powerful farmers were blamed for contributing to the problem by using too much water. “Agriculture consumes a staggering 80 percent of California’s developed water, even as it accounts for only 2 percent of the state’s gross domestic product,” exclaimed Daily Beast writer Mark Hertsgaard in a piece titled “How Growers Gamed California’s Drought.”

That 80-percent statistic was repeated in a Sacramento Bee article titled, “California agriculture, largely spared in new water restrictions, wields huge clout,” and in an ABC News article titled “California’s Drought Plan Mostly Lays Off Agriculture, Oil Industries.” Likewise, the New York Times dutifully reported, “The [State Water Resources Control Board] signaled that it was also about to further restrict water supplies to the agriculture industry, which consumes 80 percent of the water used in the state.” RELATED: The Dry Math of Scarcity This is a textbook example of how the media perpetuates a false narrative based on a phony statistic. Farmers do not use 80 percent of California’s water. In reality, 50 percent of the water that is captured by the state’s dams, reservoirs, aqueducts, and other infrastructure is diverted for environmental causes. Farmers, in fact, use 40 percent of the water supply. Environmentalists have manufactured the 80 percent statistic by deliberately excluding environmental diversions from their calculations. Furthermore, in many years there are additional millions of acre-feet of water that are simply flushed into the ocean due to a lack of storage capacity — a situation partly explained by environmental groups’ opposition to new water-storage projects.

It’s unsurprising that environmentalists and the media want to distract attention away from the incredible damage that environmental regulations have done to California’s water supply. Although the rest of the state is now beginning to feel the pinch, these regulations sparked the San Joaquin Valley’s water crisis more than two decades ago. The Endangered Species Act spawned many of these regulations, such as rules that divert usable water to protect baby salmon and a 3-inch baitfish called the Delta smelt, as well as rules that protect the striped bass, a non-native fish that — ironically — eats both baby salmon and smelt. Other harmful regulations stem from legislation backed by environmental groups and approved by Democratic-controlled Congresses in 1992 and 2009.

These rules have decimated water supplies for San Joaquin farmers and communities, resulting in zero-percent water allocations and the removal of increasing amounts of farmland from production. One would think the catastrophic consequences of these environmental regulations would be an important part of the reporting on the water crisis. But these facts are often absent, replaced by a fixation on the 80 percent of the water supply that farmers are falsely accused of monopolizing. None of the four articles cited above even mention the problem of environmental diversions. The same holds true for a recent interview with Governor Brown on ABC’s This Week. In that discussion, host Martha Raddatz focused almost exclusively on farmers’ supposed overuse of the water supply, and she invoked the 80 percent figure twice. The governor himself, a strong proponent of environmental regulations, was silent about the topic during the interview, instead blaming the crisis on global warming.

That is no surprise — President Obama also ignored environmental regulations but spoke ominously about climate change when he addressed the water crisis during a visit to California’s Central Valley in February 2014. Indeed, for many on the left, the California water crisis is just another platform for proclaiming their dogmatic fixation on fighting global warming, a campaign that many environmental extremists have adopted as a religion. You don’t have to take my word for it; just listen to Rajendra Pachauri, former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the United Nations’ foremost body on global warming. After recently leaving his job amid allegations of sexual harassment, Pachauri wrote in his resignation letter: “For me, the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.” Utterly convinced of the righteousness of their crusade, environmental extremists stop at nothing in pursuing their utopian conception of “sustainability.”

The interests of families, farmers, and entire communities — whose very existence is often regarded as an impediment to sustainability — are ignored and derided in the quest for an ever-more pristine environment free from human contamination. In the name of environmental purity, these extremists have fought for decades to cut water supplies for millions of Californians. The drought is a genuine problem in California, but our irrigation system was designed to withstand five years of drought. The reason we have a crisis now is not that farmers are using too much water. It’s not because of global warming, and it’s not even because of the drought. The reason is this: Environmental regulations and U.S. law have caused huge water-flow diversions for environmental causes and have prevented us from using our irrigation system to its full capacity. The House of Representatives has passed three bills in the last three years that would have expanded California water supplies by rolling back damaging environmental regulations. These bills died amid opposition from Senate Democrats, Governor Brown, and President Obama. Someday the media should take notice. —Devin Nunes represents California’s 22nd district.

[DEVOREFLYER]

A little ditty on where the water really goes. Seems that 80% for AG is BS....



Oh and that Wild and Scenic River thing is one of the many reasons new dams and reservoir haven't been built. No dam, reservoir, diversion, or other water impoundment facility may be constructed on any river segment included in the system.
http://www.friendsoftheriver.org/sit...rniaWildScenic

Yip that's I posted about on #43 April 24th. DR your late to the party and I am surprised as you are usually on top of your game.

[HawgZWylde]

For you guys that don't like to click on links. DR

by DEVIN NUNES April 14, 2015 12:45 PM

The statistic is manufactured by environmentalists to distract from the incredible damage their policies have caused. As the San Joaquin Valley undergoes its third decade of government-induced water shortages, the media suddenly took notice of the California water crisis after Governor Jerry Brown announced statewide water restrictions. In much of the coverage, supposedly powerful farmers were blamed for contributing to the problem by using too much water. “Agriculture consumes a staggering 80 percent of California’s developed water, even as it accounts for only 2 percent of the state’s gross domestic product,” exclaimed Daily Beast writer Mark Hertsgaard in a piece titled “How Growers Gamed California’s Drought.”

That 80-percent statistic was repeated in a Sacramento Bee article titled, “California agriculture, largely spared in new water restrictions, wields huge clout,” and in an ABC News article titled “California’s Drought Plan Mostly Lays Off Agriculture, Oil Industries.” Likewise, the New York Times dutifully reported, “The [State Water Resources Control Board] signaled that it was also about to further restrict water supplies to the agriculture industry, which consumes 80 percent of the water used in the state.” RELATED: The Dry Math of Scarcity This is a textbook example of how the media perpetuates a false narrative based on a phony statistic. Farmers do not use 80 percent of California’s water. In reality, 50 percent of the water that is captured by the state’s dams, reservoirs, aqueducts, and other infrastructure is diverted for environmental causes. Farmers, in fact, use 40 percent of the water supply. Environmentalists have manufactured the 80 percent statistic by deliberately excluding environmental diversions from their calculations. Furthermore, in many years there are additional millions of acre-feet of water that are simply flushed into the ocean due to a lack of storage capacity — a situation partly explained by environmental groups’ opposition to new water-storage projects.

It’s unsurprising that environmentalists and the media want to distract attention away from the incredible damage that environmental regulations have done to California’s water supply. Although the rest of the state is now beginning to feel the pinch, these regulations sparked the San Joaquin Valley’s water crisis more than two decades ago. The Endangered Species Act spawned many of these regulations, such as rules that divert usable water to protect baby salmon and a 3-inch baitfish called the Delta smelt, as well as rules that protect the striped bass, a non-native fish that — ironically — eats both baby salmon and smelt. Other harmful regulations stem from legislation backed by environmental groups and approved by Democratic-controlled Congresses in 1992 and 2009.

These rules have decimated water supplies for San Joaquin farmers and communities, resulting in zero-percent water allocations and the removal of increasing amounts of farmland from production. One would think the catastrophic consequences of these environmental regulations would be an important part of the reporting on the water crisis. But these facts are often absent, replaced by a fixation on the 80 percent of the water supply that farmers are falsely accused of monopolizing. None of the four articles cited above even mention the problem of environmental diversions. The same holds true for a recent interview with Governor Brown on ABC’s This Week. In that discussion, host Martha Raddatz focused almost exclusively on farmers’ supposed overuse of the water supply, and she invoked the 80 percent figure twice. The governor himself, a strong proponent of environmental regulations, was silent about the topic during the interview, instead blaming the crisis on global warming.

That is no surprise — President Obama also ignored environmental regulations but spoke ominously about climate change when he addressed the water crisis during a visit to California’s Central Valley in February 2014. Indeed, for many on the left, the California water crisis is just another platform for proclaiming their dogmatic fixation on fighting global warming, a campaign that many environmental extremists have adopted as a religion. You don’t have to take my word for it; just listen to Rajendra Pachauri, former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the United Nations’ foremost body on global warming. After recently leaving his job amid allegations of sexual harassment, Pachauri wrote in his resignation letter: “For me, the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.” Utterly convinced of the righteousness of their crusade, environmental extremists stop at nothing in pursuing their utopian conception of “sustainability.”

The interests of families, farmers, and entire communities — whose very existence is often regarded as an impediment to sustainability — are ignored and derided in the quest for an ever-more pristine environment free from human contamination. In the name of environmental purity, these extremists have fought for decades to cut water supplies for millions of Californians. The drought is a genuine problem in California, but our irrigation system was designed to withstand five years of drought. The reason we have a crisis now is not that farmers are using too much water. It’s not because of global warming, and it’s not even because of the drought. The reason is this: Environmental regulations and U.S. law have caused huge water-flow diversions for environmental causes and have prevented us from using our irrigation system to its full capacity. The House of Representatives has passed three bills in the last three years that would have expanded California water supplies by rolling back damaging environmental regulations. These bills died amid opposition from Senate Democrats, Governor Brown, and President Obama. Someday the media should take notice. —Devin Nunes represents California’s 22nd district.

Yo, welcome back to the game DR. Funny how the trolls on here adhere to their "fuzzy numbers" and if you call them on it you are branded an unintelligent "drywall installer" who worships the "Fox news" alter, facts be damned eh? Dude, according to one of our "brightest" Trolls you just committed a cardinal sin for posting "a wall of text", how dare you!

Damn farmers, drywall installers and global warming deniers, it's all their fault!

Funny thing is those Salmon, Steelhead(Rainbow Trout) and Delta Smelt have outsmarted even our most intelligent Trolls, but not Mr. Stripey...

[jrip]

We're having Turfterminators take out our lawn and make it drought resistant.

[Lady Quagga]

(The following is an excerpt from California’s Water: Water for the Environment, an insightful report on the specifics and importance of California's environmental water use. A link to the full report is available below.)

ENVIRONMENTAL WATER USE IS NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD
Source: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_415WFTER.pdf

Water counted as “environmental” in state statistics serves a variety of purposes. Although much of this water is not in direct competition with other uses, a growing volume of water is being allocated to protect endangered species or water quality in some regions. Because these increases—typically associated with court or regulatory decisions—can reduce water available for other uses, they often create controversy. A better understanding of environmental water use can help inform future decisions about water management.

Water that stays in rivers, streams, and wetlands is assigned to the environment. There are four broad types of environmental water: water that flows in rivers protected as “wild and scenic” under federal and state laws, water needed to maintain habitat within streams, water that supports wetlands for migratory birds, and water needed to maintain water quality. Water categorized as environmental accounts for half of state use, while farms (40%) and cities (10%) make up the other half.

Most environmental water use does not affect other uses. More than half of environmental water is in the wild and scenic rivers of California’s sparsely populated North Coast, where there are few alternative uses. In the rest of California, where water is shared by all three sectors, environmental use is not dominant, at 33 percent (versus 53% for farms and 14% for cities). In these regions, new allocations of water for the environment may reduce water available for other uses.

Environmental water often does double duty. In the Central Valley, most flows in wild and scenic rivers are captured by reservoirs and reused downstream by farms and cities. In many systems, minimum flow standards that help fish and other species are set to maintain water quality for drinking water and irrigation. For instance, in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, freshwater outflows (viewed by some as water “wasted to the sea”) also keep Delta water fresh enough for local farms and water exports to the Bay Area and the southern half of the state. In addition, environmental water that goes to wetlands and floodplains recharges groundwater basins.

Droughts heighten conflicts over environmental water allocations. Droughts put pressure on regulators to relax environmental standards in order to boost supplies to farms and cities. In 2014, the state approved requests to reduce environmental flows and relax salinity standards in the Delta so that water exports for farms and cities could be increased. During past droughts, low environmental flows caused long-term harm to native species populations, which ultimately led to higher regulatory costs. It is too soon to know whether recent drought management practices will have similar effects.

[seal]

Thanks for the post Hawgz. I never understood how the use of water to maintain rivers, streams etc.. could be categorized as a percentage of our water usage, understanding of course that some of that water "usage" is used for environmental causes. But seriously for Christ sake we have to have some natural watersheds where water flow is maintained we can't categorize all water within California as a usable resource, never made sense to me.

So we're back to agriculture being a main water usage abuser, or user depending on where you stand. Long and the short of it is we can't put a dent in water usage without agriculture cutting back also. Don't know how anybody could argue with that logic, logically.

[HawgZWylde]

Thanks for the post Hawgz.

Which one?

I never understood how the use of water to maintain rivers, streams etc.. could be categorized as a percentage of our water usage, understanding of course that some of that water "usage" is used for environmental causes. But seriously for Christ sake we have to have some natural watersheds where water flow is maintained we can't categorize all water within California as a usable resource, never made sense to me.

So we're back to agriculture being a main water usage abuser, or user depending on where you stand. Long and the short of it is we can't put a dent in water usage without agriculture cutting back also. Don't know how anybody could argue with that logic, logically.

[Lady Quagga]

Thanks for the post Quagz.

Fixed that for ya. And you're welcome.

I never understood how the use of water to maintain rivers, streams etc.. could be categorized as a percentage of our water usage, understanding of course that some of that water "usage" is used for environmental causes. But seriously for Christ sake we have to have some natural watersheds where water flow is maintained we can't categorize all water within California as a usable resource, never made sense to me.

I agree that the term "use" can be misleading when accounting for all of California's water resources, particularly when viewed from the angle of consumption/consumerism.

So we're back to agriculture being a main water usage abuser, or user depending on where you stand. Long and the short of it is we can't put a dent in water usage without agriculture cutting back also. Don't know how anybody could argue with that logic, logically.

Frankly, I do not understand this need some have to marginalize (or demonize) one type of water use over another. Is it any surprise that such arguments are often politically partisan in their nature?