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.

 

Water Wars: Man Made Drought for Depopulation?

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Water Wars: Man Made Drought for Depopulation?


www.infowars.com

The Federal government, influenced by the United Nations, is stealing American land and resources as Agenda 21 Sustainable Development is implemented in all states. Sustainable Development seems appealing and desirable on the surface, but it is actually a plot to erase humans entirely from 50% of American land, with a ban on extraction of resources, like water! An example of this is playing out right now in California, regarding the man made drought.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I had a suspicion that the water crisis in California is man made. There are two forces that are making this problem into a crisis. First, it's the Federal government, secondly water is controlled through contract. Under the guise of "protecting the environment" the Fed is controlling state resources. For example 48% of land in California is owned by the Federal government, restrictions on finding new water sources, and restrictions on how much water can be pumped from the north down to central and southern California cause a man made water crisis.

So when your paying your water bill you can thank the Federal government and corporate greed for your high priced bill and the drought it self.

If we do not kick the Fed out of our states, take our land back, we can expect this problem just to get worse.


www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 30-9-2009 by oconnection]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Thanks for posting this very important issue.

I live in California, and this is a serious issue here. The California Central Valley is becoming a dust bowl...with 40% unemployment in the valley. California has been the worlds leading producer of fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts.

The water has been cut off supposedly there due to some little fish called smelt, an issue with the delta, and the river.

BS...it is a major power grab on the part of the U.N.
And people wonder why some hate the New World Order...

When folks are starved on purpose, they will rise up in anger and rebel. It will be too late then.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by burntheships]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Really, I don't know what California expected to happen. As the middle east shows, attempting to Irrigate an arid landscape will only eventually result in the collapse of the ecology of that area in the long run.

You've almost exhausted every natural aquifer in the state to water your lawns, the Colorado barely even exists by the time it reaches the Pacific, and don't get me started on the Concrete Trench in LA that you call a river.

I don't like what the federal government does much of the time, but in this case they are perfectly right. California is an out of control beast that needs to have its thirst cut back drastically. It is not a situation made with the intention of depopulating on purpose, but by god you are going to feel the pain of your own hubris in the next few decades. Canada isn't selling you water and you've squandered all of your supplies.

In short, don't blame a conspiracy for the blind screw-ups and greed of man. The corporations drained the water to run the massive farms in a place that is a near desert, and you used the rest to keep green lawns and palm trees decorating LA. Its not a conspiracy, but it is man-made. Its called Cause & Effect



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by D.E.M.
 


It's not a matter of water supply if you bothered to read the article. We have the water, it just not being pumped down, hints the man made water crisis.

I lived in Washington State for a period and can attest to the huge amount of rain water that falls year to year.

If you bothered to read up you'd find that the water is there, it's not being pumped under the guise of a "environmental issue".

Even when we get high amounts of rain the same amount if less is pumped, how do you answer that? It's controlled and manipulated plain and simple. This IS a man made water crisis.



Take a look the map of government controlled land in the States, you wouldn't suspect it's so far reaching but it is. The whole environmental movement was hijacked many years ago and the agenda still continues today. It manipulates people's good sympathies towards the world around them.

End result, higher bills, many people out of jobs, more government control, a water crisis on our hands, and a likely potential for it to get much worse.

Any time you have a shortage of water that ties into agriculture so it naturally ties into a food crisis. I do not see how you can not see the potential ramifications here unless you are all for it?

What gets under my skin even more is the fact these are solvable problems yet we do nothing.



[edit on 30-9-2009 by oconnection]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by D.E.M.
 


Of course, you are correct in noting the tendency of commercial exploitation to exceed the load bearing capacity of local ecosystems.

California, more than any other state was very literally marketed to immigrating citizens as a land of 'milk and honey.' The local governments and businesses did little to limit the exploitation. And yes, the brute force irrigation was part of that exploitation.

But the citizens were very much isolated from the problem unless they sought out the minutae of their local governments and mega-corporation activities. Many have been sounding the alarm for decades.

I can't fault those who believed that their authorities had everything under control. I can fault the authorities for maintaining the illusion that this wasn't a crisis long in coming. And of course there are those who knew that they were overtaxing the system and continued because profit, prestige, or power was their objective - more than blame, they were criminal.

I think we should be really examining this culture of 'green lawns' which have no natural equivalent. Why we insist that we should have green lawns or we're not good or considerate neighbors, I'll never know.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
I think we should be really examining this culture of 'green lawns' which have no natural equivalent. Why we insist that we should have green lawns or we're not good or considerate neighbors, I'll never know.


Rubbish, personal use of the water supply in California, ie domestic use accounts for just 11% percent of the water supply. The biggest portion of the water supply is for the "environment", second is for agriculture.

California’s water usage is divided as follows:

48 % Environmental (federally regulated)

41 % Agricultural

11 % Urban


The two of you seem to have your minds already made up, do you consider the possibility that the water supply is manipulated? It's not a matter of not being able to get more water, the water is there, waiting to be pumped but it's not.

Please go over the provided article, do your own research, ect.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by oconnection]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by oconnection
 


So you want to drain water from yet another state to support a man-made ecosystem that is buckling under its own weight? Just to support the rapacious desire of California to have its paradise in a desert.

I did read the article, and I've read about the topic for a decade. What you are suggesting is piping resources across the country to support an ecology that is collapsing due to the greed and poor planning of man. That is idiocy. That is Lunacy. There are sound ecological reasons for not stealing large amounts of water from one place and moving it to another.

Are you going to suggest draining the Great Lakes and tanker trucking them across the continent next?



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by oconnection
 


A shortage is a shortage. At the end of the day it comes down to how much your willing to pay for fresh water. In my case a lot. So they got me the short hairs. Why no discussion as to using renewable or nuclear power sources to produce fresh water drawn from the Pacific Thats the large body of water to the west...(yes I know I'm a smart ass).



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.E.M.
reply to post by oconnection
 


So you want to drain water from yet another state to support a man-made ecosystem that is buckling under its own weight? Just to support the rapacious desire of California to have its paradise in a desert.

Firstly the only reason why we have to do this in the first place is due the the environmental restrictions, we can't look for our own water supply! So our only option is to unfortunately pipe it down.



Are you going to suggest draining the Great Lakes and tanker trucking them across the continent next?


For the area I live in I can suggest a few solutions. Lift some of the environmental restrictions so we can develop our own sustainable water supply. In LA most of our rain water runs out to sea, why not process it, filter it and use it?

I do see your point but there is a larger issue at hand here.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture
reply to post by oconnection
 


A shortage is a shortage. At the end of the day it comes down to how much your willing to pay for fresh water. In my case a lot. So they got me the short hairs. Why no discussion as to using renewable or nuclear power sources to produce fresh water drawn from the Pacific Thats the large body of water to the west...(yes I know I'm a smart ass).


Why do people seem to be completely blind to the obvious? A shortage because of there simply isn't water is one thing, this is a shortage because the government decides so. California has vast amounts of water that often times just runs into the sea totally un-utilized. This is not because we are lazy or unable but often it's due because of the restrictions put upon the state from the Federal government.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by oconnection

Originally posted by D.E.M.
reply to post by oconnection
 


So you want to drain water from yet another state to support a man-made ecosystem that is buckling under its own weight? Just to support the rapacious desire of California to have its paradise in a desert.

Firstly the only reason why we have to do this in the first place is due the the environmental restrictions, we can't look for our own water supply! So our only option is to unfortunately pipe it down.

No, the great lakes are already fresh. Anyway the size of the Pacific gives us some breathing room.



Are you going to suggest draining the Great Lakes and tanker trucking them across the continent next?


For the area I live in I can suggest a few solutions. Lift some of the environmental restrictions so we can develop our own sustainable water supply. In LA most of our rain water runs out to sea, why not process it, filter it and use it?

I do see your point but there is a larger issue at hand here.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Pipe it down or create the infrastructure needed to allow bulk water transport from Alaska to California. Alaska is set up for exporting bulk water, all they need is a place to ship it to on the West Coast. China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, all have the necessary facilities to send a bulk tanker full of H20. Sadly California does not.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by oconnection
 


Those are idea's I can get behind, yes. In the long run, however, they are going to hurt you more than harm you. Rainwater restrictions exist because we do not know what the wholesale harvesting of moisture from the air will do to the surrounding environment, but preliminary tests showed that it very likely would not be good. Eg: The Sonoran expanding out to cover the state in a few hundred years.

Salt Water Desalination would be a better method of sourcing water. You are still, however, looking for a bandaid for the situation. The cure is reducing the strain on the ecology. An arid environment was not meant to sustain what Californians expect it to.

The federal restrictions are in place because there are other inhabitants of the state, plants and animals, that matter just as much as the humans do if not more so. If you look at your chart you are already utilizing 52% of the water produced by the ecology. Would you use 98% and watch the land wither around you? Should nature die of thirst so your lawn can remain green and a few more immigrants can eat? Get a grip, there is a reason that water is protected: So that your state doesn't turn into a lifeless Sahara with LA at it's edge.

It also does not produce 50% of the worlds food. Nor 50 of North America's food. Not even 50% of the food supply for the USA.


[edit on 30-9-2009 by D.E.M.]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by oconnection
 


Your correct, lifting the federal water issues and allowing the proper usage of water is best. They just don't seem to be listening to the farmers. It's like a controlled implosion. Create a crisis, and let Uncle Sam come to the rescue with cuffs in hand.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.E.M.
reply to post by oconnection
 

The federal restrictions are in place because there are other inhabitants of the state, plants and animals, that matter just as much as the humans do if not more so. If you look at your chart you are already utilizing 52% of the water produced by the ecology. Would you use 98% and watch the land wither around you? Should nature die of thirst so your lawn can remain green and a few more immigrants can eat? Get a grip, there is a reason that water is protected: So that your state doesn't turn into a lifeless Sahara with LA at it's edge.
[edit on 30-9-2009 by D.E.M.]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.E.M.
It also does not produce 50% of the worlds food. Nor 50 of North America's food. Not even 50% of the food supply for the USA.


[edit on 30-9-2009 by D.E.M.]


Please review the following PDF:
www.cdfa.ca.gov...

Not sure what numbers you are going off but this is the official report.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by oconnection

Originally posted by Maxmars
I think we should be really examining this culture of 'green lawns' which have no natural equivalent. Why we insist that we should have green lawns or we're not good or considerate neighbors, I'll never know.


Rubbish, personal use of the water supply in California, ie domestic use accounts for just 11% percent of the water supply. The biggest portion of the water supply is for the "environment", second is for agriculture.

California’s water usage is divided as follows:

48 % Environmental (federally regulated)

41 % Agricultural

11 % Urban


The two of you seem to have your minds already made up, do you consider the possibility that the water supply is manipulated? It's not a matter of not being able to get more water, the water is there, waiting to be pumped but it's not.

Please go over the provided article, do your own research, ect.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by oconnection]


My mind is made up about the fact that the need to redistribute the water in the state reflects an engineered relationship with the local ecosystem that is inconsistent with nature. It's a bad plan.

There may be enough water to go around, but the government seems to hold to the paradigm that all water must be 'bused in'. I thought (correct me please, if I am mistaken) that the problem is with the redistribution of water, and for the benefit of whom?

If people/institutions simply had been located at the point of water's availability this could have been avoided. That was my point.

You seem to think I had implied some burden of fault on the part of the people who live there. I don't. Most of these communities and living centers were planned which is the source of my position.

I think you guys are getting screwed six ways to Sunday, if you don't mind my saying so.

Of course there are better ways to manage things. The problem is the reason why they are being managed as they are.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Maxmars]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by oconnection

Originally posted by arbiture
reply to post by oconnection
 


A shortage is a shortage. At the end of the day it comes down to how much your willing to pay for fresh water. In my case a lot. So they got me the short hairs. Why no discussion as to using renewable or nuclear power sources to produce fresh water drawn from the Pacific Thats the large body of water to the west...(yes I know I'm a smart ass).


Why do people seem to be completely blind to the obvious? A shortage because of there simply isn't water is one thing, this is a shortage because the government decides so. California has vast amounts of water that often times just runs into the sea totally un-utilized. This is not because we are lazy or unable but often it's due because of the restrictions put upon the state from the Federal government.


So in the end what are you going to do about government possesion of water resources? Take the monopoly away by making it cost effective for outher organizations to supply water. Renewable/nuclear energy could make that happen.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.E.M.

The federal restrictions are in place because there are other inhabitants of the state, plants and animals, that matter just as much as the humans do if not more so. If you look at your chart you are already utilizing 52% of the water produced by the ecology. Would you use 98% and watch the land wither around you? Should nature die of thirst so your lawn can remain green and a few more immigrants can eat? Get a grip, there is a reason that water is protected: So that your state doesn't turn into a lifeless Sahara with LA at it's edge.
[edit on 30-9-2009 by D.E.M.]


This is a typical extreme argument, it's none the less a scare tactic if you realize it or not. Utilization of natural resources is part of what it is to be human, it's part of what separates us from the apes, or a dog. We have the intelligence to utilize the world around us.

With that said I do not believe we should rape and pillage the world around us. I believe we should use what we need. I fail to see growing food and drinking a glass of water some how an evil act.

So I guess you agree with the Federal government closing off 48% percent of the land in the states for the environment? What about a carbon tax? Why not tax us for just being alive?

Really I hope you can consider the possibility that this isn't just about the flowers, the little fishes, and the cute little squirrels for a moment. It's more about unnecessary government control of what used to be our land.

Basically what you are saying is we must be policed and the Federal government is the best tool for that. I'd counter with the argument that the government has a horrible track record and you shouldn't trust that they will protect the environment, instead they will often use it for there own purposes.

So in the end both sides of the issue will be screwed, neither side will come out on top.

I will give you a little story. There used to be a military facility in my neighborhood back in the 50-80s. When the base shut down there was a lot of left over radiation in the soil. Basically a lot of people were getting sick from the radiation. It leaked in the water supply, went into the air, and stayed in the soil. It took a law suite and many people dieing for the government to even attempt to clean up anything. To this day I see clean up operations late at night.

So honestly, how can you trust the government to protect the environment when they can't be trusted to clean up there own messes? This is just one little story, there are countless others.

What you are most likely missing from this article and my posts is the use of environmental issues for power and control.

You seem to be against corporate greed yet you have voiced no opposition to excessive government control. You may find corporatism and big government often go hand and hand.

I personally grow a organic garden in my back yard, end result healthy vegetables on demand. I wonder if everyone did this would we save water and would it be better for the environment?

[edit on 30-9-2009 by oconnection]




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join