I just got back from an eight-day vacation in Northern California and the Central Coast. The drought is really bad out there folks if you're not from out there. And since 80 pct of this country's fruits and vegetables are grown in the Central Valley, I'd say that state's drought affects all of us.

When you drive from California to Texas, it's like a switch is turned on east of Vegas and everything turns from brown to green.

My main question here is why can't farmers in the upper Midwest try to convert their crops some from corn, wheat and soy to more fruits and vegetables? I don't think the climate from Illinois down can handle some of California's fruits and vegetables but I would imagine Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa and other states could do so easily? It seems like more and more people are moving away a bit from grains anyway towards more fruits and vegetables so it probably would be a financial boon to those farmers who had the foresight to make the change.

I honestly don't see how farmers in Salinas and areas like that can survive with the water they need for their crops. The water will run out if nature can't help out soon.

Part of the problem is the self inflected wounds caused by the diversion of water from the Central Valley, in order to protect the delta smelt.

Quote:In May 2007, a Federal District Court Judge ruled that increased amounts of water had to be re-allocated towards protecting the Delta smelt – a three-inch fish on the Endangered Species List.

Because of this ruling, in 2009 and 2010 more than 300 billion gallons (or 1 million acre-feet) of water were diverted away from farmers in the Central Valley and into the San Francisco Bay – eventually going out into the Pacific Ocean.

Congressional Report

And this diversion continues today.

The Republican House passed a bill to overturn the water wasting but Harry Reid, under orders from Tom Steyer and with a firm grasp around his ankles, has refused to allow it to come to a vote.

House Bill

(08-13-2014 06:58 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  My main question here is why can't farmers in the upper Midwest try to convert their crops some from corn, wheat and soy to more fruits and vegetables?

Answer number one: Corn ethanol subsidy.
Answer number two: Fruits and vegetables don't adapt to the midwest as well as you may think.

(08-13-2014 07:28 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Part of the problem is the self inflected wounds caused by the diversion of water from the Central Valley, in order to protect the delta smelt.

Quote:In May 2007, a Federal District Court Judge ruled that increased amounts of water had to be re-allocated towards protecting the Delta smelt – a three-inch fish on the Endangered Species List.
Because of this ruling, in 2009 and 2010 more than 300 billion gallons (or 1 million acre-feet) of water were diverted away from farmers in the Central Valley and into the San Francisco Bay – eventually going out into the Pacific Ocean.

Congressional Report
And this diversion continues today.
The Republican House passed a bill to overturn the water wasting but Harry Reid, under orders from Tom Steyer and with a firm grasp around his ankles, has refused to allow it to come to a vote.
House Bill

Like it or not, we need a massive conversion to re-use of sewer effluent or we are going to have a national water crisis of a scale to make our energy woes look minuscule by comparison. California is just the tip of the iceberg. ETA: Just to clarify, we are going to have the problem regardless. Re-cycling water buys us time and makes the peak less ominous, but it's going to take that--and more--ultimately.

I often marvel at the hypocrisy of all these Hollywood stars who run their mouths about protecting the environment but use 20,000-30,000 gallons a month to keep their heavily landscaped yards beautiful--in the middle of a desert. Every single drop of irrigation water for non-food-producing plants needs to be recycled wastewater effluent. That's a start, then go from there.

(08-13-2014 07:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 07:28 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Part of the problem is the self inflected wounds caused by the diversion of water from the Central Valley, in order to protect the delta smelt.

Quote:In May 2007, a Federal District Court Judge ruled that increased amounts of water had to be re-allocated towards protecting the Delta smelt – a three-inch fish on the Endangered Species List.
Because of this ruling, in 2009 and 2010 more than 300 billion gallons (or 1 million acre-feet) of water were diverted away from farmers in the Central Valley and into the San Francisco Bay – eventually going out into the Pacific Ocean.

Congressional Report
And this diversion continues today.
The Republican House passed a bill to overturn the water wasting but Harry Reid, under orders from Tom Steyer and with a firm grasp around his ankles, has refused to allow it to come to a vote.
House Bill

Like it or not, we need a massive conversion to re-use of sewer effluent or we are going to have a national water crisis of a scale to make our energy woes look minuscule by comparison. California is just the tip of the iceberg. ETA: Just to clarify, we are going to have the problem regardless. Re-cycling water buys us time and makes the peak less ominous, but it's going to take that--and more--ultimately.

I often marvel at the hypocrisy of all these Hollywood stars who run their mouths about protecting the environment but use 20,000-30,000 gallons a month to keep their heavily landscaped yards beautiful--in the middle of a desert. Every single drop of irrigation water for non-food-producing plants needs to be recycled wastewater effluent. That's a start, then go from there.

We have never had a water crisis here in the Mid-Atlantic. Even in our biggest drought (I don't know around 2008ish), there was no shortage.

(08-13-2014 06:58 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I just got back from an eight-day vacation in Northern California and the Central Coast. The drought is really bad out there folks if you're not from out there. And since 80 pct of this country's fruits and vegetables are grown in the Central Valley, I'd say that state's drought affects all of us.

When you drive from California to Texas, it's like a switch is turned on east of Vegas and everything turns from brown to green.

My main question here is why can't farmers in the upper Midwest try to convert their crops some from corn, wheat and soy to more fruits and vegetables? I don't think the climate from Illinois down can handle some of California's fruits and vegetables but I would imagine Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa and other states could do so easily? It seems like more and more people are moving away a bit from grains anyway towards more fruits and vegetables so it probably would be a financial boon to those farmers who had the foresight to make the change.

I honestly don't see how farmers in Salinas and areas like that can survive with the water they need for their crops. The water will run out if nature can't help out soon.

This notion that most of the fruits and vegetables come from California is a myth. The midwest and southern US produce quite a bit of both. This may be true for some nuts and citrus.

99% of the fruits and vegetables that I buy in the store are locally grown because I buy local.

On a side note: I wish it would start raining in California so all the fruits and nuts will stop moving here.

(08-13-2014 08:03 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 07:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 07:28 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Part of the problem is the self inflected wounds caused by the diversion of water from the Central Valley, in order to protect the delta smelt.

Quote:In May 2007, a Federal District Court Judge ruled that increased amounts of water had to be re-allocated towards protecting the Delta smelt – a three-inch fish on the Endangered Species List.
Because of this ruling, in 2009 and 2010 more than 300 billion gallons (or 1 million acre-feet) of water were diverted away from farmers in the Central Valley and into the San Francisco Bay – eventually going out into the Pacific Ocean.

Congressional Report
And this diversion continues today.
The Republican House passed a bill to overturn the water wasting but Harry Reid, under orders from Tom Steyer and with a firm grasp around his ankles, has refused to allow it to come to a vote.
House Bill

Like it or not, we need a massive conversion to re-use of sewer effluent or we are going to have a national water crisis of a scale to make our energy woes look minuscule by comparison. California is just the tip of the iceberg. ETA: Just to clarify, we are going to have the problem regardless. Re-cycling water buys us time and makes the peak less ominous, but it's going to take that--and more--ultimately.

I often marvel at the hypocrisy of all these Hollywood stars who run their mouths about protecting the environment but use 20,000-30,000 gallons a month to keep their heavily landscaped yards beautiful--in the middle of a desert. Every single drop of irrigation water for non-food-producing plants needs to be recycled wastewater effluent. That's a start, then go from there.

We have never had a water crisis here in the Mid-Atlantic. Even in our biggest drought (I don't know around 2008ish), there was no shortage.

I seem to remember things differently.

(08-13-2014 08:14 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 08:03 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 07:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 07:28 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Part of the problem is the self inflected wounds caused by the diversion of water from the Central Valley, in order to protect the delta smelt.

Quote:In May 2007, a Federal District Court Judge ruled that increased amounts of water had to be re-allocated towards protecting the Delta smelt – a three-inch fish on the Endangered Species List.
Because of this ruling, in 2009 and 2010 more than 300 billion gallons (or 1 million acre-feet) of water were diverted away from farmers in the Central Valley and into the San Francisco Bay – eventually going out into the Pacific Ocean.

Congressional Report
And this diversion continues today.
The Republican House passed a bill to overturn the water wasting but Harry Reid, under orders from Tom Steyer and with a firm grasp around his ankles, has refused to allow it to come to a vote.
House Bill

Like it or not, we need a massive conversion to re-use of sewer effluent or we are going to have a national water crisis of a scale to make our energy woes look minuscule by comparison. California is just the tip of the iceberg. ETA: Just to clarify, we are going to have the problem regardless. Re-cycling water buys us time and makes the peak less ominous, but it's going to take that--and more--ultimately.

I often marvel at the hypocrisy of all these Hollywood stars who run their mouths about protecting the environment but use 20,000-30,000 gallons a month to keep their heavily landscaped yards beautiful--in the middle of a desert. Every single drop of irrigation water for non-food-producing plants needs to be recycled wastewater effluent. That's a start, then go from there.

We have never had a water crisis here in the Mid-Atlantic. Even in our biggest drought (I don't know around 2008ish), there was no shortage.

I seem to remember things differently.

Were you in the mid-Atlantic that year?

(08-13-2014 08:03 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 07:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 07:28 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Part of the problem is the self inflected wounds caused by the diversion of water from the Central Valley, in order to protect the delta smelt.

Quote:In May 2007, a Federal District Court Judge ruled that increased amounts of water had to be re-allocated towards protecting the Delta smelt – a three-inch fish on the Endangered Species List.
Because of this ruling, in 2009 and 2010 more than 300 billion gallons (or 1 million acre-feet) of water were diverted away from farmers in the Central Valley and into the San Francisco Bay – eventually going out into the Pacific Ocean.

Congressional Report
And this diversion continues today.
The Republican House passed a bill to overturn the water wasting but Harry Reid, under orders from Tom Steyer and with a firm grasp around his ankles, has refused to allow it to come to a vote.
House Bill

Like it or not, we need a massive conversion to re-use of sewer effluent or we are going to have a national water crisis of a scale to make our energy woes look minuscule by comparison. California is just the tip of the iceberg. ETA: Just to clarify, we are going to have the problem regardless. Re-cycling water buys us time and makes the peak less ominous, but it's going to take that--and more--ultimately.

I often marvel at the hypocrisy of all these Hollywood stars who run their mouths about protecting the environment but use 20,000-30,000 gallons a month to keep their heavily landscaped yards beautiful--in the middle of a desert. Every single drop of irrigation water for non-food-producing plants needs to be recycled wastewater effluent. That's a start, then go from there.

We have never had a water crisis here in the Mid-Atlantic. Even in our biggest drought (I don't know around 2008ish), there was no shortage.

Charlotte and Atlanta have had some pretty severe droughts. Not to the degree of CA, but I remember seeing Atlanta's primary reservoir probably 50% below normal many years back. Raleigh's too. in Charlotte, the docks on the lakes that provide that area with water were so far from the water that people would have been lowering their boats into parched earth (not even mud).

Fortunately, we've had more than our fair share of water the last two summers and the farmers have had record crops.

As these areas continue to grow quickly, water will eventually become an issue unless there is a creation of new reservoirs to capture more water.

(08-13-2014 08:25 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 08:03 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 07:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 07:28 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Part of the problem is the self inflected wounds caused by the diversion of water from the Central Valley, in order to protect the delta smelt.

Quote:In May 2007, a Federal District Court Judge ruled that increased amounts of water had to be re-allocated towards protecting the Delta smelt – a three-inch fish on the Endangered Species List.
Because of this ruling, in 2009 and 2010 more than 300 billion gallons (or 1 million acre-feet) of water were diverted away from farmers in the Central Valley and into the San Francisco Bay – eventually going out into the Pacific Ocean.

Congressional Report
And this diversion continues today.
The Republican House passed a bill to overturn the water wasting but Harry Reid, under orders from Tom Steyer and with a firm grasp around his ankles, has refused to allow it to come to a vote.
House Bill

Like it or not, we need a massive conversion to re-use of sewer effluent or we are going to have a national water crisis of a scale to make our energy woes look minuscule by comparison. California is just the tip of the iceberg. ETA: Just to clarify, we are going to have the problem regardless. Re-cycling water buys us time and makes the peak less ominous, but it's going to take that--and more--ultimately.

I often marvel at the hypocrisy of all these Hollywood stars who run their mouths about protecting the environment but use 20,000-30,000 gallons a month to keep their heavily landscaped yards beautiful--in the middle of a desert. Every single drop of irrigation water for non-food-producing plants needs to be recycled wastewater effluent. That's a start, then go from there.

We have never had a water crisis here in the Mid-Atlantic. Even in our biggest drought (I don't know around 2008ish), there was no shortage.

Charlotte and Atlanta have had some pretty severe droughts. Not to the degree of CA, but I remember seeing Atlanta's primary reservoir probably 50% below normal many years back. Raleigh's too. in Charlotte, the docks on the lakes that provide that area with water were so far from the water that people would have been lowering their boats into parched earth (not even mud).

Fortunately, we've had more than our fair share of water the last two summers and the farmers have had record crops.

As these areas continue to grow quickly, water will eventually become an issue unless there is a creation of new reservoirs to capture more water.

Yeah, I remember Georgia having problems that year. It didn't rain here all summer and was around the 100 degree mark the whole time and we never got the first water restriction.

I wish I could share some of Detroit's water we got on Monday...

If Atlanta had another million people, the crisis would have been felt a lot more. Some day Atlanta will have another million people. What then?

We need at minimum
1) Recycling and re-use of treated effluent
2) More reservoirs, where feasible
3) Changes in expectations--local, drought-tolerant plants in place of those that need more water, for example

Things like low-flow shower heads and toilets make people feel good, but the water they save is fairly small in the aggregate, compared to the size of the problem.

(08-13-2014 08:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Atlanta had another million people, the crisis would have been felt a lot more. Some day Atlanta will have another million people. What then?

We need at minimum
1) Recycling and re-use of treated effluent
2) More reservoirs, where feasible
3) Changes in expectations--local, drought-tolerant plants in place of those that need more water, for example

Things like low-flow shower heads and toilets make people feel good, but the water they save is fairly small in the aggregate, compared to the size of the problem.

affluent lakes or grey water reciprocals are not sanitary. My brother lived in a complex in AZ that had one of those lakes out front. Basically it claimed everyone's sink water. It had pretty waterfalls and nice lights. Except for the fact that the water was green. They put sidewalks and charcoal grills all around it.

That complex had an epidemic of HPV virus spreading around and they traced it back to that nasty lake.

It think those things are gross and should be banned.

(08-13-2014 08:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Atlanta had another million people, the crisis would have been felt a lot more. Some day Atlanta will have another million people. What then?

We need at minimum
1) Recycling and re-use of treated effluent
2) More reservoirs, where feasible
3) Changes in expectations--local, drought-tolerant plants in place of those that need more water, for example

Things like low-flow shower heads and toilets make people feel good, but the water they save is fairly small in the aggregate, compared to the size of the problem.

If Atlanta has another million people, adjustments will be made. I don't see Atlanta having a million more people, however, not with this country in decline and low birthrates. More likely new cities pop up elsewhere.

(08-13-2014 08:59 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 08:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Atlanta had another million people, the crisis would have been felt a lot more. Some day Atlanta will have another million people. What then?

We need at minimum
1) Recycling and re-use of treated effluent
2) More reservoirs, where feasible
3) Changes in expectations--local, drought-tolerant plants in place of those that need more water, for example

Things like low-flow shower heads and toilets make people feel good, but the water they save is fairly small in the aggregate, compared to the size of the problem.

If Atlanta has another million people, adjustments will be made. I don't see Atlanta having a million more people, however, not with this country in decline and low birthrates. More likely new cities pop up elsewhere.

Most data points to the I85 corridor between Atlanta and Raleigh will be a major, major area of growth in the U.S. going forward.

Unless something significant happens, the Atlanta metro area will add many millions more. Atlanta proper may not add a million people (it only has like 450,000 right now anyway), but the metro area almost assuredly will.

(08-13-2014 09:07 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 08:59 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 08:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Atlanta had another million people, the crisis would have been felt a lot more. Some day Atlanta will have another million people. What then?

We need at minimum
1) Recycling and re-use of treated effluent
2) More reservoirs, where feasible
3) Changes in expectations--local, drought-tolerant plants in place of those that need more water, for example

Things like low-flow shower heads and toilets make people feel good, but the water they save is fairly small in the aggregate, compared to the size of the problem.

If Atlanta has another million people, adjustments will be made. I don't see Atlanta having a million more people, however, not with this country in decline and low birthrates. More likely new cities pop up elsewhere.

Most data points to the I85 corridor between Atlanta and Raleigh will be a major, major area of growth in the U.S. going forward.

Unless something significant happens, the Atlanta metro area will add many millions more. Atlanta proper may not add a million people (it only has like 450,000 right now anyway), but the metro area almost assuredly will.

We'll see. That kind of sustained growth over a long period requires economic growth and a demand shock. That will be very difficult to achieve under the "new normal", especially considering they are competing with the rest of the country that is trying to be the next new thing.

(08-13-2014 09:07 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 08:59 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 08:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Atlanta had another million people, the crisis would have been felt a lot more. Some day Atlanta will have another million people. What then?

We need at minimum
1) Recycling and re-use of treated effluent
2) More reservoirs, where feasible
3) Changes in expectations--local, drought-tolerant plants in place of those that need more water, for example

Things like low-flow shower heads and toilets make people feel good, but the water they save is fairly small in the aggregate, compared to the size of the problem.

If Atlanta has another million people, adjustments will be made. I don't see Atlanta having a million more people, however, not with this country in decline and low birthrates. More likely new cities pop up elsewhere.

Most data points to the I85 corridor between Atlanta and Raleigh will be a major, major area of growth in the U.S. going forward.

Unless something significant happens, the Atlanta metro area will add many millions more. Atlanta proper may not add a million people (it only has like 450,000 right now anyway), but the metro area almost assuredly will.

Should be a hot destination for a lot of the illegals the Democrats are bringing in. Get ready for a lot of lawn care trucks and non English speaking kids in your classrooms.

(08-13-2014 09:11 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 09:07 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 08:59 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 08:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Atlanta had another million people, the crisis would have been felt a lot more. Some day Atlanta will have another million people. What then?

We need at minimum
1) Recycling and re-use of treated effluent
2) More reservoirs, where feasible
3) Changes in expectations--local, drought-tolerant plants in place of those that need more water, for example

Things like low-flow shower heads and toilets make people feel good, but the water they save is fairly small in the aggregate, compared to the size of the problem.

If Atlanta has another million people, adjustments will be made. I don't see Atlanta having a million more people, however, not with this country in decline and low birthrates. More likely new cities pop up elsewhere.

Most data points to the I85 corridor between Atlanta and Raleigh will be a major, major area of growth in the U.S. going forward.

Unless something significant happens, the Atlanta metro area will add many millions more. Atlanta proper may not add a million people (it only has like 450,000 right now anyway), but the metro area almost assuredly will.

We'll see.

Birth rates don't really matter that much for regional growth because Atlanta and other major metro areas in the south will just pull from rural areas and the Northeast / Midwest.

Much of the growth in NC's metro areas has actually come from the rural areas as people abandon those areas due to low economic opportunity. I'm sure Atlanta has seen a lot of growth from that as well. I don't see that changing. Rural areas are doomed.

(08-13-2014 09:12 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 09:07 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 08:59 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 08:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Atlanta had another million people, the crisis would have been felt a lot more. Some day Atlanta will have another million people. What then?

We need at minimum
1) Recycling and re-use of treated effluent
2) More reservoirs, where feasible
3) Changes in expectations--local, drought-tolerant plants in place of those that need more water, for example

Things like low-flow shower heads and toilets make people feel good, but the water they save is fairly small in the aggregate, compared to the size of the problem.

If Atlanta has another million people, adjustments will be made. I don't see Atlanta having a million more people, however, not with this country in decline and low birthrates. More likely new cities pop up elsewhere.

Most data points to the I85 corridor between Atlanta and Raleigh will be a major, major area of growth in the U.S. going forward.

Unless something significant happens, the Atlanta metro area will add many millions more. Atlanta proper may not add a million people (it only has like 450,000 right now anyway), but the metro area almost assuredly will.

Should be a hot destination for a lot of the illegals the Democrats are bringing in. Get ready for a lot of lawn care trucks and non English speaking kids in your classrooms.

I am right in the middle of that area and we have had that in huge numbers for years.

(08-13-2014 09:14 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 09:12 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 09:07 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 08:59 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 08:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Atlanta had another million people, the crisis would have been felt a lot more. Some day Atlanta will have another million people. What then?

We need at minimum
1) Recycling and re-use of treated effluent
2) More reservoirs, where feasible
3) Changes in expectations--local, drought-tolerant plants in place of those that need more water, for example

Things like low-flow shower heads and toilets make people feel good, but the water they save is fairly small in the aggregate, compared to the size of the problem.

If Atlanta has another million people, adjustments will be made. I don't see Atlanta having a million more people, however, not with this country in decline and low birthrates. More likely new cities pop up elsewhere.

Most data points to the I85 corridor between Atlanta and Raleigh will be a major, major area of growth in the U.S. going forward.

Unless something significant happens, the Atlanta metro area will add many millions more. Atlanta proper may not add a million people (it only has like 450,000 right now anyway), but the metro area almost assuredly will.

Should be a hot destination for a lot of the illegals the Democrats are bringing in. Get ready for a lot of lawn care trucks and non English speaking kids in your classrooms.

I am right in the middle of that area and we have had that in huge numbers for years.

It's fun watching your culture and your regional identity fade away isn't it?