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.

 

Federal water may be cut off from Calif. farms

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by MBF
 



I wouldn't worry too much about food not being produced, because every year I see thousands of acres of produce rot in the fields because there is no demand or the price is so low that you can't even pay for the gathering of it.

In a saner world, food would be grown where it is natural for it to grow, without the need for massive irrigation. I am guessing that in such a scenario, you would be growing the squash and selling them at a fair price, and Californians would be doing something else with their deserts.




posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   
I wrote my last post to quickly and didnt edit it properly.

I wasnt trying to say that every last person in California was responsible, just that there are people at all levels who have pushed for these policies and others who refuse to even get involved fighting these ideas even when they knew that the ideas being pushed into law were wrong and disastrous.


MBF

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


I have had a problem with irrigation water being provided to the farmers out there when I have to pay for all of mine. If there was a problem with not enough food being produced to feed the country, I would not have a problem with it. But there is a lot of cotton produced out west that uses government provided irrigation and all that does is drive the price down for everybody. Besides, I think that too much cotton is produced in this country. Several years ago, when I was growing cotton, we were growing about 5 million bales more than the mills in this country needed. Today, most of the mills have moved to other countries and we grow about 15-20 million bales more than mills in this country need. These figures are just off the top of my head, but I think they are close.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
One would think that with transportation being so advanced today, there would be no need to ever create an artificial environment for growing things. There aught to be an "ideal" location somewhere in the world for each product to grow with a minimum of input of resources and energy, and then that product could be transported to markets everywhere.
It sort of happens that way anyway, as far as transportation goes, but once the infrastructure is there for the old models of production, well the business lobbyists just keep pressuring for more or continued subsidies and government handouts.
Maybe with the current economy, all these expensive habits will be reviewed.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
LOL what people don't realize is that Agriculture in California (at least Southern Cali, where I lived) is done in the Desert.

They have these farms set up quite literally in the middle of the desert, within view of the Glamis Sand Dunes, and pipe in water to grow everything.

Now, whoever thought this was a good idea in the long term... certainly should be re-thinking this idea now...



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   
California supplies One Fifth of the WORLDS FOOD! ONE FIFTH!
Sorry for raising my voice, but that is significant. Is Los Angelos and Hollywood more important than a Fifth of the food for the World?
Of course it is not.

Question: So why then, would any thinking person cut off the water to the farmers?
Answer: To put them out business!



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
California supplies One Fifth of the WORLDS FOOD! ONE FIFTH!


Question: So why then, would any thinking person cut off the water to the farmers?
Answer: To put them out business!


exactly! food still is needed for survival - right?
crazy.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


Food for thought if nothing else. Southern California is one of the few places in the world where the sun shines nearly all the time. So it does make sense to pipe water down there to produce some of the best, bountiful food in the world.

But I am not seeing any warnings to pool owners, car wash operators, and other non necessary water guzzlers. Doubt I will! ???



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Yes, farmers here do not enjoy the benefits of rainfall directly on crops but must rely on melting Sierra snow pack/rain stored behind government funded damns, or water carried to their area in government funded canals from rivers far away.

And, yes, what sense does it make for a cotton farmer in CA to flood irrigate, unless he is using cheap, govt subsidized water.

Water must be shared with non-farm users. In good years, things work, but in drought years...bring on the water wars! The 1970's drought brought many water saving practices, many still in use today, but, then we relapse into our old ways and try to make the same amount of water serve an increasing number of water users who demand more water.

There are housing developments that have a communal swimming pool instead of each house having one. That is good. Leaf blowers gained popularity as a way to move dirt/leaves without water. That is not so good. (Maybe someone needs to come up with another invention...you know, like...like...a broom!)

And we need to rethink what industries need water in large quantities. To make the plastic for the plastic bottles we fill with water? Those companies who don't use water efficiently need to disappear, letting the ones that can recycle, for example, efficiently get the business.

Americans have been taught that "green" thinking is for sissies and wimps, stinky dope smoking hippies. All in the name to continue profits from wasteful expenditures of water and energy. I would rather see profits go to sensible, sustainable energy and farming. Jeez, when is the last time you even heard the word "sensible"


edit to add that many farmers will switch to more expensive well water, water that must be pumped from the ground, which uses energy to run the pumps. However, not all farmers have wells for crop use, only domestic.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by desert]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I love reading these posts regarding disparing remarks about California,when the reason they use it as an example when it comes to the US whatever is happening to Calif is happening all over the US,it's just some of you live in such insignificant states,why bother reporting?you don't know it yet but your in as bad or worse shape,they will longer have Calif federal taxes to subsidize there pathetic states



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Oldtimer2
 

Holy smokes, Oldtimer!

California taxpayers receive less federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid than the average state. In 2005, California taxpayers received only 78 cents in federal expenditures for every dollar in federal taxes. In 1995, by contrast, California taxpayers were receiving 94 cents in federal expenditures for each tax dollar.

source
That put us towards the bottom (43) of federal spending received per dollar of tax paid


OW! Somebody's biting the hand that feeds them.
Oldtimer, I think if CA started to slide into the sea, the other states would be trying to reel us back in.


[edit on 28-2-2009 by desert]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
One thing i don't understand is the way water is used in Calif.

A couple of years ago some of the crews of the news helicopters in LA Calif were ask about the number of swimming pools used in the city.

Every one of these crew member said that they rarely saw anyone using there backyard pools

How many billions of gallons of water is being wasted by these people just so the can claim they have status symbol swimming pool that they never use.




new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join