It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Almost extinct fish helps keep California parched

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee

It will fail eventually and maybe a planned decline is the best solution. Or maybe they should rethink how they use water and actually use it as a resource.



This is a failed experiment and real solutions need to be looked at. This is the cold hard truth. It sucks....It really does but California can not keep using water this way. Look at other places that are having daily earthquakes because of fracking......This is also not sustainable long term and must change.
edit on 6-5-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: JHumm
If we're told that if we all would agree to not eat crabs for only one season that there would be enough crabs for everyone for the next 100 years ...what do you think would happen? .....people would probably have big crab feasts to say that they had some of the last crabs on earth. ..


Except that isn't what happened. They never knew why the smelt was disappearing. They only assumed it was because of the water intake turbines. So they shut those off, and the smelt are STILL disappearing. The lack of water turbine suction has made no impact in the population at all.

Basically, they wanted to irrigation stopped and used the thinnest pretext to do it.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee

Ummm, OK so at what point should Cali be made to take responsibility for its consistently bad management practices?

I don't like there. Never have. Why should I prop the place up like Michigan is propping up that tumor also known as Detroit?

When and if I manage my own household into the ground, my neighbors aren't going to be forced to save me from myself nor should they.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: Char-Lee

So by your reasoning Cali should have plenty of water.....RIGHT. What they are doing is not sustainable and will fail in the future.


They planned wrong and now are crying.....demanding.....stealing......destroying to keep it afloat.


Like all states, there are only so many resources and yes we may overpopulate especially with


(DHS), an estimated 2,830,000 unlawful immigrants resided in California in 2011, compared to 1.5 million in 1990 and 2.5 million in 2000.

and increasing mostly into the water needy areas like LA.

Each state produces what they can including desert states and any could come upon strained times, it is not just some CA thing. The Northern part of the state is rolling in water normally and sparsely populated. Dryer areas need to stop growing, but again the same problems face the whole country if people would take a look. Our bread belt and corn growing lands are in trouble too. The deserts are being used for too many cattle...it is all a balance and easy to get into trouble the more we populate.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




Ummm, OK so at what point should Cali be made to take responsibility for its consistently bad management practices?


No one mentioned water practices until we had a drought situation. The lack of mountain snow is just that a lack of mountain snow.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Char-Lee

Ummm, OK so at what point should Cali be made to take responsibility for its consistently bad management practices?

I don't like there. Never have. Why should I prop the place up like Michigan is propping up that tumor also known as Detroit?

When and if I manage my own household into the ground, my neighbors aren't going to be forced to save me from myself nor should they.






You are 100% correct at what point do we say enough water already.....5 years....10 years....Never. It is not sustainable and will fail if we have a bad enough drought.


At what point is it not the land failing the people but the people failing the land.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: misskat1
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Im a Californian, this isnt about the fish. Its about owning water rights in California. This is about Agenda 21.


I'm also a Californian, and this state's almond orchards have grown by 90,000 acres since 2011. this is an extra 140.6 square miles of land that has to be watered all year round. this is in addition to the 2011 total levels of almond trees of 835,000 acres which is 1,304.6 square miles of land....total 1,445.2 square miles of JUST, JUST, almond trees. so...the entire state of Rhode Island is 1,545 square miles, and that is what California NOW has planted, and has to be watered all the time.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee

I agree with your last comments S. Cali is not being used in the right ways. They need to change.....They have to change.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth

Well, I know step one!

Parties over! Revoke the sanctuary policies and enforce immigration law. Stop pampering your celebs and golf courses. No more railroad to nowhere ... you need desalination plants.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Fish dont drink the water!
they swim in the Same water...
why are they really out to kill the fish?



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Char-Lee

Ummm, OK so at what point should Cali be made to take responsibility for its consistently bad management practices?

I don't like there. Never have. Why should I prop the place up like Michigan is propping up that tumor also known as Detroit?

When and if I manage my own household into the ground, my neighbors aren't going to be forced to save me from myself nor should they.



tell you what, California taxpayers has been propping up other states, we here pay more in federal taxes than we get back...and if you are from a 'fly-over state"....your state farm bill subsidies are most likely in the billions each year, and we Californians are tired of subsidizing it.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

The San Joaquin Valley has been called the bread basket of the world. We feed a lot of people. Although I am sorry about the fish, I think its more important that food is grown instead of saving a dying breed of fish. My dad was a farmer.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: misskat1
a reply to: jimmyx

The San Joaquin Valley has been called the bread basket of the world. We feed a lot of people. Although I am sorry about the fish, I think its more important that food is grown instead of saving a dying breed of fish. My dad was a farmer.


that's where I live, and as far as I'm concerned those fish will just have to die...we here in Stockton just got word that our county will have a mandatory water cutback of 28%...some land in the southern part of the central valley has sunk 7 feet or more from aquifer pumping. I also just read that the southern pine forests up in the mountains have had approx. 12 million trees die already this year alone, and millions more are expected as the year progresses



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx
Ive had a real bad feeling, that we are going to have some bad fires this year. We just had an equake 3.3 just below Shasta Dam a couple of hours ago, and I have a sink hole forming under my peach tree. I just stuck my arm down on one side and OMG, its deeper than I thought. I live just under Shasta Dam, so I might be heading for higher ground before the day is over.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
We have no right to cause the extinction of any creature, it's not our place. If there is any possibility of saving the species then you do it, period.
edit on 6-5-2015 by DiggerDogg because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: DiggerDogg

I agree, and I would hope someone is catching the few that are left, and breeding them in captivity, so when this drought cycle has finished, they can be released in their natural habitat.
But, it still doesnt negate the need for the California Farmers to water their crops. Human life has to come first. And the fish can be saved via aquarium.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: misskat1
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Im a Californian, this isnt about the fish. Its about owning water rights in California. This is about Agenda 21.


I'm also a Californian, and this state's almond orchards have grown by 90,000 acres since 2011. this is an extra 140.6 square miles of land that has to be watered all year round. this is in addition to the 2011 total levels of almond trees of 835,000 acres which is 1,304.6 square miles of land....total 1,445.2 square miles of JUST, JUST, almond trees. so...the entire state of Rhode Island is 1,545 square miles, and that is what California NOW has planted, and has to be watered all the time.


Yes they are growing massive amounts of nutritious food for the US and world growing population.

As population grows, food production must also increase adding it to where it already grows is wise the areas growing nut crops are good for nut crops, the areas further So are better for row crops, this is just the way it is... Where do you want to grow it in the empty spaces in Nevada?

Having been in the area and having a business in agriculture I know how things work. Yearly whole orchards are removed hundreds of acres because they lose good production after not that many years and replacing means waiting several years for the first crop.

It would be less foolhardy to remove people and give the water to the food then to remove the food the nation and world needs.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Oh noes! You don't like farm subsidies either ...



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I wonder if the fracking water that is used for irrigation is effecting the fish. Im sure the run off has to reach our ground water and streams.
www.latimes.com...=1



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: misskat1

And don't forget the perpetual rerouting of water that shouldn't be accessible. Ie other counties water supplies. I live in la and I hate the fact we steal water from the grapevine it's appaling.
edit on 5310852015vAmerica/Chicago05bAmerica/Chicago by 5thNovember because: (no reason given)







 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join