10 Apr 2015

Liberal Environmental Policies Largely to Blame for Californian Drought

California’s Gov. Jerry “Moonbean” Brown has declared a water emergency in California due to drought conditions. But, what the Gov. is not saying is that he, and his radical environmentalist buddies, are largely responsible for the harsh effects of the drought.  
As the Wall Street Journal’s Allysia Finley explains, the lack of rain is obviously the source of the problem. But liberal state policies that bow at the altar of environmental groups are not helping at all:

During normal years, the state should replenish reservoirs. However, environmental regulations require that about 4.4 million acre-feet of water—enough to sustain 4.4 million families and irrigate one million acres of farmland—be diverted to ecological purposes. Even in dry years, hundreds of thousands of acre feet of runoff are flushed into San Francisco Bay to protect fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
During the last two winters amid the drought, regulators let more than 2.6 million acre-feet out into the bay. The reason: California lacked storage capacity north of the delta, and environmental rules restrict water pumping to reservoirs south. After heavy rains doused northern California this February, the State Water Resources Control Board dissipated tens of thousands of more acre-feet. Every smelt matters.
Californian Republican Presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina, has weighed in on the matter according to Newsmax:
Former Hewlett-Packard CEO and potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina is blaming “overzealous liberal environmentalists” for the water shortages caused by California’s ongoing drought.
“Specifically, these policies have resulted in the diversion of more than 300 billion gallons of water away from farmers in the Central Valley and into the San Francisco Bay in order to protect the Delta smelt, an endangered fish that environmentalists have continued to champion at the expense of Californians. This water is simply being washed out to sea, instead of being channeled to the people who desperately need it,” Fiorina wrote in Time. “While they have watched this water wash out to sea, liberals have simultaneously prevented the construction of a single new reservoir or a single new water conveyance system over decades.”

Increased surface storage would give regulators more latitude to conserve water during heavy storm-flows and would have allowed the state to stockpile larger reserves during the 15 years that preceded the last drought. Yet no major water infrastructure project has been completed in California since the 1960s.
Money is not the obstacle. Since 2000 voters have approved five bonds authorizing $22 billion in spending for water improvements.

Meantime, green groups won’t allow new storage regardless—and perhaps because—of the benefits. California’s Department of Water Resources calculates that the proposed Sites Reservoir, which has been in the planning stages since the 1980s, could provide enough additional water during droughts to sustain seven million Californians for a year.

Read More:http://www.caintv.com/hello-from-california-where-we 

3 comments:

  1. Total bullshit, like just about everything else on this site.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yep, absolute bullshit.

    Some facts about water usage in the west, they are easy to verify using Google:

    Water usage:
    80% Agriculture
    14% Industrial
    6% Residential

    Agricultural Crop that uses the most water: Alfalfa
    It takes at least 55 acre-inches of water to grow one acre of alfalfa for one year, that equals 1.5 million gallons, yes 1.5 million gallons for one acre of alfalfa!
    California averages about 1 million acres of alfalfa planted each year. That amounts to 1.5 trillion gallons of water usage.
    The 5 states bordering the Colorado river grow about 1.75 million acres of alfalfa, using 2.6 trillion gallons of water.
    Across the west, 12% of the alfalfa (and 30% of all other animal fodder) grown is exported to foreign countries.

    Oh yeah, those idiot environmentalists are the cause of all the water problems.


    And by the way, a drought is defined as lower than normal precipitation, how exactly are the environmentalists to blame for lower than normal precipitation as your ignorant headline claims?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Carly Fiorina is not exactly the expert I would consult on this issue. Perhaps she doesn't know that the Sacramento River is tide-affected all the way to the town of Knight's Landing, north of the capitol Sacramento. Failure to allow enough fresh water to push back the salt water that inflows at flood tide would be a major disaster for an important agricultural area in the delta, where the farm land is now actually BELOW sea level due to decades of soil loss and settling.

    As for building new reservoirs, Carly, like most people, probably doesn't realize that dam sites are a geologic feature -- THEY CANNOT BE ENGINEERED. Trying to build a dam on a marginal site results in a disaster like the Teton Dam in 1976:https://youtu.be/cdOGPBnfoKE There was an attempt decades ago to build a dam on the American River, but it was wisely stopped when cooler heads pointed out that a failure would utterly destroy the capitol Sacramento. There are many other places that look, to the amateur eye, like great dam sites, but they have all been looked at by dam experts and found lacking. There are no more good dam sites in California.

    That leaves bringing in water from outside of the state, and the largest accessible body is the Columbia River. An aqueduct across the eastern Oregon desert could dump its load into Goose Lake on the Oregon-California border, flow through the Pit River arm of the Sacramento River watershed, from which it could enter Shasta Lake. From there it can be delivered to most of the state through existing infrastructure.

    Sounds like a good project, until you ask "do we really want to make it easier for California to grow its population?"

    ReplyDelete