Will California

We can only hope.

The same people  pushing the alarmist global warming stuff are also in favor of legalizing millions of illegal immigrants.   If there isn't enough water now why are they in favor of adding to the population? 

For the votes. Anyone who thinks lefties give a **** about 'the people' are as ignorant as it gets.

" If we allow California to dry up like a month old dog t**d, it could break off and capsize into the ocean. However, if those mean Republicans would pass Helium legislation, we could attach gazillions of those giant foil balloons and keep it afloat".

Rep. Hank Johnson (D) Georgia.

____

Typical extremist, absolutist  blithering nonsense from the chief purveyor of same!

====================

No way contendah aka betternnun. That title belongs to you and no one can take it from you. I have never seen ONE post from you that proves you give a rip about anyone or anything other than yourself. You're mikey, you hate everything.

The root cause of their water woes, among many other things, are "environmentalists".

____
No.  The history of western water project boondoggles sheds much light on why the current situation has developed  This history is well told and immaculately documented a PBS documentary series, "Cadillac Desert" and in a book of the same name:  

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~.../cadillac_desert.htm

From the book, page 333:

"The whole state thrives, even survives, by moving water from where it is, and presumably isn't needed, to where it isn't, and presumably is needed. No other state has done as much to fructify its deserts, make over its flora and fauna, and rearrange the hydrology God gave it. No other place has put as many people where they probably have no business being. There is no place like it anywhere on earth. Thirty-one million people (more than the population of Canada), an economy richer than all but seven nations' in the world, one third of the table food grown in the United States---and none of it remotely conceivable within the preexisting natural order." 

I believe that California is supposed to get wetter with global warming:

http://www.latimes.com/science...-20141211-story.html

I might add that the 20th Century was wetter than average for California:

http://www.mercurynews.com/sci...ods-have-lasted-more

We have known that California would be deficient of water for over 40 years. I remember this prediction in the 70's.  Yet to this day I have not seen one government official, whether they be Democrat or Republican, who has advocated building or even planning to build, desalination facilities along the coastline, of which California has an abundance.  The same thing is occurring in Atlanta, and yet no one wants to build something that could provide unlimited supplies of fresh water for the populace. They are building them in Saudi Arabia, yet our government can't seem to stop worrying about ridiculous things like gay rights, findings aw way to make illegal entry into our country legal, or how to stop generals from recognizing God, to so something useful like address a real issue.

_____________________________________

In delivering aid to drought-stricken California last week, President Obama and his aides cited the state as an example of what could be in store for much of the rest of the country as human-caused climate change intensifies.

But in doing so, they were pushing at the boundaries of scientific knowledge about the relationship between climate change and drought. While a trend of increasing drought that may be linked to global warming has been documented in some regions, including parts of the Mediterranean and in the Southwestern United States, there is no scientific consensus yet that it is a worldwide phenomenon. Nor is there definitive evidence that it is causing California’s problems.

In fact, the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter, when the state gets the bulk of its precipitation. That has prompted some of the leading experts to suggest that climate change most likely had little role in causing the drought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02...to-warming.html?_r=0

_____

Typical extremist, absolutist  blithering nonsense from the chief purveyor of same!

I suggest a "Statewide Pee Day".

Say, propose that on a certain day, at a certain hour, everyone in California take a "pee" at whatever location they are at.

Pee on your lawn. Pee in a waterway. Pee down a "Manhole".

Just pee!

Crisis avoided!

More incisive commentary--from an Amazon.con online review.  Do not miss the part about salts accumulations in the soils of irrigated lands and the eventual and inevitable abandonment of agriculture under those  conditions. History is replete with such phenomena.

<<<<I am somewhat ashamed to have read this book only recently. I should have read this one years ago.Well, better late than never, and I am pleased to report that it deserves its enduring reputation..But let me assume that I am writing this "review" for an audience that is neither familiar with Reisner's book nor aware of the role water development has played in every aspect of the history of the American West, particularly of California.  Briefly, the history of water development contains the whole story of the West, from start to present. Early modern irrigation worked miracles and opened to the plow land previously unavailable for agriculture -- land that now feeds the nation and much of the world. If it were not for these early, massive hydro-projects, not one of the great cities of the West would be even conceivable, millions upon millions of people would and could never have considered settling the western half of the continent. Of course, there was a massive cost accompanying all of these benefits, measurable in human as well as environmental terms, but in those days the cost-benefit analysis was easy.

Building upon early irrigation successes, two government agencies -- the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers, may they both live forever in infamy -- garnered unto themselves massive power and independence, which they used to keep on building dam after dam after dam. The problem was not so much (at the time the dams were built) that the environmental costs were higher with every dam, until there now remains no wild river beyond the hundredth meridian of any significance whatsoever, precious little habitat for migratory birds, mass extinctions, etc., etc., tragically etc.; the real problem (at the time the dams were built) was that the new dams brought no benefits whatsoever to stack up against their costs. Each new dam represented gratuitous environmental catastrophe, effected simply because water projects became the currency of pork barrel Congressional politics.

And that's not the worst of it. Except for the Egyptian (the Nile River being a very special case), every civilization founded upon irrigation has always ended -- abruptly -- almost certainly due to the sudden and permanent despoliation of irrigated agricultural soil through concentration of salts, which is the inevitable result of irrigation. No previous irrigation civilization has ever worked on such a grand scale, or with soil already so alkaline, as ours. Death by salinity is happening with alarming rapidity in the American West even now. The end of agriculture as we know it in the West is coming, and coming soon; all the experts know it; nothing is being done.

Reisner doesn't suggest much in the way of solutions. But as history -- explaining patterns of human settlement, the effects of that settlement on the region's geography, the patterns of flow and accumulation of wealth in the West, and what may be the greatest crisis our whole nation is facing and ignoring today -- Cadillac Desert can't be beat."

http://www.amazon.com/dp/01401...f=pd_sl_7agfnwweyq_b

Nope:

http://www.science20.com/scien...ement_problem-154625

 It is raining in California as I write this but most of it will do little good. The rain is going to go to a gutter and the gutter will go to a stream and that will go to an ocean.

Yes, much of the fresh water that California has runs into the Pacific Ocean. You might wonder why the Pacific Ocean needs so much, since 96 percent of Earth's water is already in oceans, but the oceans are not asking for it. Instead, it is due to anti-science policies lobbied for by well-heeled California environmentalists.

Environmental regulations mandate that water that would sustain 4.4 million families gets flushed this way, regardless of drought conditions (however, farmers do get penalized during a drought, the environment must come before food). Meanwhile, Governor Jerry Brown just now got around to mandating water conservation among his wealthiest and most loyal voters. It had to be mandated because the wealthy are not conserving anything the way the more agricultural sections of California have been doing for two years.

It's not a surprise that Governor Brown and California government love fines and penalties and heavy-handed tactics, in a 'if your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail' kind of way, but if we cared about the actual problem - having enough water in good times and bad - the situation would be easy to resolve. For example, enough water to sustain 2.6 million California families was dumped into the ocean because there isn't enough storage capacity in the north of the state and environmental rules limit the amount of water that can be pumped to reservoirs in the south. 

Why not allow more water to be stored in the south or build more reservoirs in the north instead of dumping fresh water into the ocean? Californians know water is important, we have agreed to water bonds totaling $22 billion in recent years, but the money has ended up going to environmental projects rather than things that help the people paying interest on those bonds.

Most of California is actually desert, the green parts are all watered to be that way, and we know droughts will happen - this is the fourth one in 50 years - so it would make sense to store more water, a literal anti-rainy day plan. But environmentalists block all efforts to create more reservoirs even though we know this sort of thing has always happened and will continue to happen. California water goes up and down like a yo-yo:

Image from: Andy Meanie
Because of environmental impact lawsuits and lobbying by environmental groups, there hasn't been a real investment in water infrastructure since the 1960s, when there were only 16 million people in California. Now there are 40 million people all using the same major infrastructure.

Why not do what people in real deserts, like Israel do, and create desalination plants? In California they are not affordable because we mandate 'green' energy and that has led to electricity costs that are 50 percent higher than the rest of the country. Then you have to factor in the environmental litigation costs. As the WSJ notes, Poseidon had to spend 6 years in court to get a permits for its desalination plant. In return they have to restore 60 acres of wetlands. Yes, in order to create fresh water in the future they have to waste fresh water on creating even more swamps now, while southern California people ration.

The common denominators in our water problem are a lack of snow and lawsuit-driven, rather than science-driven, environmentalism. We can only fix one of those.

Enjoy the rain, it won't last. But our environmental policy will remain all wet.

____

You can't be serious, Harold, but if you were, my response would be, "Not quite.".  

If, in your proposed pee-in, each of 30 million Californians delivered a full pint of the prescribed commodity, this would satisfy only  a minuscule fraction of the state's daily water demand.

30 million pints = 3,757,000 gallons = 500,000 cubic feet.  One acre-foot of water or pee (an acre covered to a depth of one foot) = 43,560 cubic feet.  

500,000 cubic feet of water would fill a four-acre pond to a depth of less than 3 feet. 

Such a paltry pee puddle is definitely not the deus ex machina for California water problems.

Contendah, I don't think Harold meant his idea would solve the entire problem, he just recognized there is a crisis and that the citizens of California must all unite and participate in any way they can, and any small contribution will help.  Heck, they could form a group to measure and track when, where, and how much they contributed, and ways to increase their contributions.  Meetings on a weekly basis for discussion would be in order. It could be called:

                                                        " CUP"

                                     California Urination Project (pronounced-see-u-pee)

                                     Our Motto: "Doing our part with our "parts"!"

____

I acknowledged that Harold "can't be serious," Mule. I was just trying to illustrate the magnitude of the problem against the "minitude" of mass urination as a solution.

Love that acronym!

California built a water system for a population of about 20 million, then stopped. Stopped by environmentalists from enlarging the system to accommodate the present population of 30 plus million.  There would be about 10 large reservoirs where there are none because of the persistent lawsuits of the enviros. About 70 percent of California's water goes to the sea every year lost because of the gr*a*s*s*h*opper mentality of the Sacramento set. Who didn't spend to keep up the systems they built, Millions of gallons are lost due to leaks.

Archaeologists and climate scientists documented the persistence of droughts in the Southwest, What caused those -- certainly not humans, unless one accepts the Mayan excuse that not enough humans sacrifices were made to Chac, their rain god.

Which makes about as much sense of the enviros excuses.

In case Condie missed it, the Tennessee Valley prospers partially from the works of TVA and the Army Corps of Engineers. 

_____

Those documented droughts, dire, were not taken into account in much of the water project planning in the American West.  Example: the Central Arizona Project, whose projected water

delivery potential was faultily based on selected historical records that reflected atypically wet periods. I know that to be the case, since I served on a 5-person presidential  review panel for that project in the late 1970s.

Water going to the sea is not wasted water. It is essential to the maintenance of estuaries and to the support of anadromous fish populations.

The TVA system is not comparable to those of the Far West.  Water availability was not the issue in the wetter states of the East.  Water availability was THE issue in the West.

____________________________________________--

So, the problem is that documented droughts were not included in the plans,  Appears to be one more reason to start building the reservoirs planned but never built.

As to the statement, " Except for the Egyptian (the Nile River being a very special case), every civilization founded upon irrigation has always ended -- abruptly --..." 

China has practiced irrigation for a couple of thousand years. I have yet to hear of its demise.  Perhaps, someone could enlighten me!  For over a thousand years, the Romans moved water via aqueducts, canals and dams to provide water to their cities and their farms.  In northwestern Spain, a couple of those aqueducts are still in use -- been repaired over the centuries (saw them, myself).  Rome did not fall because of irrigation failure.

"Dujiangyan is the oldest and only surviving non-dam irrigation system in the world, and a wonder in the development of Chinese science. Built over 2,200 years ago in what is now Sichuan province in Southwest China, this incredible feat of engineering is still in use today to irrigate over 668,700 hectares of farmland, drain floodwater, and provide water resources for more than 50 cities in the province.  Dujiangyan is now undergoing its largest renovation in over a decade."

Read more: http://www.ancient-origins.net...system#ixzz3ad4zj6A7

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We now know the answer!

Contenduh says "

Those documented droughts, dire, were not taken into account in much of the water project planning in the American West.  Example: the Central Arizona Project, whose projected water

delivery potential was faultily based on selected historical records that reflected atypically wet periods. I know that to be the case, since I served on a 5-person presidential  review panel for that project in the late 1970s."

With mental giants like this serving as consultants and rule makers, it is no wonder that "Californey" is in the condition it is in now. Were the other four members of this advisory board Larry, Curly, Moe and Shemp????

Probably Harpo, Gummo and Dummo led by Groucho

Drought shaming targets wealthy California water wasters who have lush lawns.

Rich and famous Californians are in hot water for their lush green lawns.

Class-conscious social media users are taking aim at wealthy water wasters as the Golden State struggles in the fourth year of a devastating drought.

The tweets are often accompanied by aerial photos showing fields of dead, brown grass punctuated by the rich, verdant lawns of expensive estates.

The New York Post got involved by criticizing various celebrities for allegedly running the tap too long, including Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, Barbra Streisand, Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Simpson, Hugh Hefner and others. 

http://news.yahoo.com/drought-...ought-154223581.html

Most of that bunch are lefties and spout do as I say, not as I do.

As they have always done.