Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 113

Thread: Tier 1 Water Shortage for SW appears inevitable

  1. Top | #101
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,745
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,651
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    That is already being done in some places. The Murray/Darling region in Victoria has trade in water, buying water rights, etc. Which also causes a set of problems.
    Any change causes "problems". What is your point?
    As in the case of the Murray Darling region, the 'solution' doesn't really address the issue of water management yet causes economic hardship for many towns along the river systems.

    The point is, we need to act smarter but vested interests appear to do their best to prevent that from happening.

  2. Top | #102
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    19,354
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    61,297
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    That is already being done in some places. The Murray/Darling region in Victoria has trade in water, buying water rights, etc. Which also causes a set of problems.
    Any change causes "problems". What is your point?
    As in the case of the Murray Darling region, the 'solution' doesn't really address the issue of water management yet causes economic hardship for many towns along the river systems.

    The point is, we need to act smarter but vested interests appear to do their best to prevent that from happening.
    You mean like water users complaining about tradable water rights that increased their price of water?

    Increased water scarcity is going to mean economic hardship for someone(s), regardless how it is dealt with.

  3. Top | #103
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,745
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,651
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    As in the case of the Murray Darling region, the 'solution' doesn't really address the issue of water management yet causes economic hardship for many towns along the river systems.

    The point is, we need to act smarter but vested interests appear to do their best to prevent that from happening.
    You mean like water users complaining about tradable water rights that increased their price of water?

    Increased water scarcity is going to mean economic hardship for someone(s), regardless how it is dealt with.
    I mean basic human nature, where each self interest group lobbies the Government to pass laws that favour their needs and wants. Where the compromises that are made result in a less than ideal response to what may be an ecological and economic crisis.

  4. Top | #104
    Elder Contributor barbos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Mlky Way galaxy
    Posts
    11,986
    Archived
    8,047
    Total Posts
    20,033
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    This doesn't necessarily mean that we must stop farming almonds, but it does mean farmers need to stop some troublesome practices like flood-irrigating orchards in early Spring and invest in subsurface drip systems that are more efficient. The theoretical drought tolerance of the plant means nothing if the growers refuse to take advantage of those tolerances. And as with all things America, this has become a partisan battle where facts are often ignored. A substantial portion of almond growers do not believe that there is a drought, and refuse to risk more disease and less yield adjusting for a natural crisis that they believe to be an Obama-era hoax.
    Interesting, I wonder what percentage of water is actually going through almond tree . You can in theory make water loss through evaporation from soil smaller by simply covering it, at least partially.

  5. Top | #105
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,581
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,794
    Rep Power
    64
    Does bark, not dog bark, tree bark respirate or produce energy? If not then one can place a water containing sleeve over trunk bark and on the ground above where roots drive to efficiently introduce water to the Almond tree, providing point of contact hydration with results of leaf photosynthesis for tree nutrition and health.

  6. Top | #106
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    19,354
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    61,297
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    As in the case of the Murray Darling region, the 'solution' doesn't really address the issue of water management yet causes economic hardship for many towns along the river systems.

    The point is, we need to act smarter but vested interests appear to do their best to prevent that from happening.
    You mean like water users complaining about tradable water rights that increased their price of water?

    Increased water scarcity is going to mean economic hardship for someone(s), regardless how it is dealt with.
    I mean basic human nature, where each self interest group lobbies the Government to pass laws that favour their needs and wants. Where the compromises that are made result in a less than ideal response to what may be an ecological and economic crisis.
    I see, you think there is an ideal response to these situations that will result in no one facing some hardship.

  7. Top | #107
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,365
    Rep Power
    23
    It seems like there is some interest for getting into the details of almond production and water reduction! I highly recommend the website UC Davis maintains on the subject. Their work is politically controversial but scientifically rigorous, and their website is pretty transparent and detailed.

    http://ucmanagedrought.ucdavis.edu/A...egies/Almonds/

    A wander through the sidebar will give you some information on other common California crops as well.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  8. Top | #108
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,745
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,651
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    I mean basic human nature, where each self interest group lobbies the Government to pass laws that favour their needs and wants. Where the compromises that are made result in a less than ideal response to what may be an ecological and economic crisis.
    I see, you think there is an ideal response to these situations that will result in no one facing some hardship.
    Our response to a crisis, ecological, economical, etc, may range from being very effective to virtually useless, or on balance may even cause more harm than good....depending on who is running the government.

    The right wing, for instance, hardly acknowledge that that we have a ecological or climate problem. So, if in power, what are they likely to do? Business as usual?

    What is 'ideal?'

  9. Top | #109
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    19,354
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    61,297
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    I mean basic human nature, where each self interest group lobbies the Government to pass laws that favour their needs and wants. Where the compromises that are made result in a less than ideal response to what may be an ecological and economic crisis.
    I see, you think there is an ideal response to these situations that will result in no one facing some hardship.
    Our response to a crisis, ecological, economical, etc, may range from being very effective to virtually useless, or on balance may even cause more harm than good....depending on who is running the government.

    The right wing, for instance, hardly acknowledge that that we have a ecological or climate problem. So, if in power, what are they likely to do? Business as usual?

    What is 'ideal?'
    You are the one who brought up "ideal response", not me. My point is that any response to an ecological or economic issue will have winners and losers - someone will bear an unwanted hardship.

  10. Top | #110
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,745
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,651
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Our response to a crisis, ecological, economical, etc, may range from being very effective to virtually useless, or on balance may even cause more harm than good....depending on who is running the government.

    The right wing, for instance, hardly acknowledge that that we have a ecological or climate problem. So, if in power, what are they likely to do? Business as usual?

    What is 'ideal?'
    You are the one who brought up "ideal response", not me. My point is that any response to an ecological or economic issue will have winners and losers - someone will bear an unwanted hardship.


    Sometimes the response in a crisis is far from 'ideal' - which is just another way of saying an 'inadequate response.' Nor did I suggest that no one would or should be disadvantaged whenever a course of action undertaken. That is inevitable.

    It's a matter balance between effective action and possible disadvantages suffered by those who can least afford it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •