SFR--Why People hate California......

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Vladimir Steblina, Jan 31, 2014.

  1. Steven Mobley

    Steven Mobley Member

    I disagree, agribusiness (farming) does not desire every drop at the expense of our Delta fisheries. The water is NOT being considered for either agribusiness, nor the fisheries, it is being sent down south (L.A.) to service all those homes sprawling around in the desert. The same desert that is sucking the Colorado dry and making it an algae bloom in two states. The proposal of another giant concrete ditch by our idiots would send water the fish and farmers need to the desert dwellers.

    I guess by your definition, folks living in Wa, Tx, Az and Fl do not live in communities?? I don't mind paying my FAIR share of taxes, but I certainly don't like paying my neighbor's, especially when it's being wasted. I'm not a young man and I've seen our fisheries suffer due to corruption and politics.

    We do agree, however, on one point you made, the Hollywood action-hero was a predictable wreck.
     
  2. Trapper Badovinac

    Trapper Badovinac Author, Writer, Photographer

    After reading all 4 pages of posts, it seems we have both current and former Californians here. I have a question.

    With 15" of annual precip, SoCal is basically a semi-arid desert that stretches to the Pacific. California is home to ~1 in 10 Americans and ~25 million live in SoCal. (By contrast, Montana, with very similar semi-arid land to SoCal, is home to less than 1 in 300 Americans and is only 10% smaller than California.) That many people would be a huge strain on any semi-arid land, but with all the demand to make the lawns, golf courses, etc resemble those in Seattle, it's not possible for it to sustain that on it's own.

    The SoCal stereotype is that of Liberal/Tree Hugger/Save the Earth, Whales, Voles and earth worms/PETA etc. How is it then that they can, as a community, justify their insatiable need to alter their landscape in such a manner? How do they justify channeling water from as far away as the western slopes of Colorado into their homes, not for staying hydrated, but for all those extraneous purposes?

    This is not a trick question and it's not intended to be any sort of derision. I'm genuinely stumped by what I see as a huge contradiction.

    Trapper
     
    fredaevans likes this.
  3. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    I'm with you on that Trapper.

    CA could do itself a favor by pricing water to its citizens according to its scarcity. Some kind of tiered pricing - $25 for the first 600 cubic feet, then $1 per cubic foot for the next 500, then $100/c.f. thereafter. That would encourage some serious conservation. Or encourage people to not live in the desert.

    Sg
     
    Dan Nelson and Kyle Smith like this.
  4. _WW_

    _WW_ Fishes with Wolves

    It would also encourage me to by a huge tanker truck! :)
     
    Old406Kid and Kyle Smith like this.
  5. Kaiserman

    Kaiserman content


    They just started doing that last week... sort of. They are calling it a penalty. Up 25%, then 50% over certain amounts of usage.
     
  6. bakerite

    bakerite Active Member

    This is an interesting thread. I left Seattle for "the hinterlands" in 1992 after living there since 1955. I know everyone moved and to Seattle from somewhere, but there is a perception that a bunch of folks from SoCal moved up in the eighties and nineties and screwed up our little hunk of paradise with too many people, too much money and too much attitude. I think any old-timers from Seattle will agree that there was a better quality of life before the population spiked with a bunch of folks that thought nothing of an hour long commute, and wanted a McMansion because that was what they were used to.
    Now I live in a place where the population has been about the same since 1900. It is a semi-arid dessert too, but the resources are more in balance with the number of people. I also lived in the Flathead Valley for 8 years. A lot of people from SoCal have moved to both places because they visit in the summer and are impressed with the beauty of the areas. The impact on Montana is worse because they don't have the land use planning that Oregon does, but a lot of these people tend to leave after the first hard winter.
    What’s my point? Well the biggest problem with California is that when people leave there because it’s so messed up a lot of them land up here.
     
  7. Yard Sale

    Yard Sale Active Member

    And why do you think all those people left Ca? Maybe it's because a lot of people moved there in the same time span from all over the country including, gasp, Or and Wa..

    Really this is a basic discussion about overpopulation and it's spread to the west.
     
    Charles Sullivan likes this.
  8. fredaevans

    fredaevans Active Member

    Google 'State of Jefferson.' It's popped up again.
     
  9. Travis Bille

    Travis Bille Active Member

    I know, a bunch of northern California counties keep voting on whether or not they want to secede from California
     
  10. KerryS

    KerryS Ignored Member

    I Thought this was the Seattle stereotype. At least for some on this board I know it is.
     
  11. Vladimir Steblina

    Vladimir Steblina Retired Forester...now fishing instead of working

    Well, back on topic.....here is an article on California's demand for electricity this year. My guess they are going to ship BPA power down to California this summer.

    "Transmission connections to other states – especially Oregon and Washington – have also improved dramatically, giving state operators more options when summer demands are extremely high."

    Here is the entire article: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...t-a-message-to-consumers-Water-is-power-video

    The real question if Obama will suspend the ESA for the recovery of the Pacific salmon like Clinton did in 2000. It might be time to start writing letters to the Congressional delegation and Governors in the BPA service area, that NO SUSPENSION of ESA IF power is sent to California.

    Also that unlike 2000, California really does need to conserve energy. Really in 2014 we should be more willing to conserve to we were in 1973. Turn off the street lights after 11:00 pm, shut-off business lights when closed, and switch security lighting so that it is activated by motion detectors.
     
  12. KerryS

    KerryS Ignored Member

    Good luck with that. Money, my friend, money is what makes the salmon churn in the turbines.
     
  13. Mark Walker

    Mark Walker Active Member

  14. Vladimir Steblina

    Vladimir Steblina Retired Forester...now fishing instead of working

    Right. But California's per capita use of electricity is due to mild climate and availability of natural gas. If you drive on I-5 at night can you really with a straight face say that California is doing all it can to conserve energy. I think we can all do better in this area. California refused to conserve energy in 2000 and at the same time the city of Seattle said that they had DONE IT ALL when it came to energy conservation and would NOT do anymore. In 73, we shut off the streetlights. In 2000, cities declared victory so they would not have to conserve energy.

    When I was working I saw first hand the effect of "Ecological Imperialism" where those with the dough-re-me just ran roughshod over areas without the level of political influence. California has raised it to a fine art, starting with the Owens Valley.

    After I retired I went back to the southwest and traveled those backroads in the middle of somewhere. In 2010, almost every backroad with water had a coal fired plant generating electricity for California. Now California will not permit a coal fired plants in the state, but has NO PROBLEM with out-of-state generating plants trashing Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and Nevada.

    It was pretty funny when cities and counties in California called for the boycott of Arizona. The state of Arizona called and said "OK, we assume that means your cancelling your contract for electricity from the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant". City of Los Angeles THEN said they would SUE Arizona to keep the electricity flowing, while at the same time they were cancelling government contracts and banning travel by city employees to Arizona!! Yep, that's how California governments do business.

    Take a look at the US Energy Information fact sheet and look at how much "dirty" electricity California imports from other states!!

    The point of this is that California does NOT care about Endangered Fish in the Northwest. They want the cheap power to stave off brownouts. They did it in 2000. They will try to do it again in 2014.

    I like salmon and do not want to lose the fish in eastern Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Then there is the investment of BILLIONS of dollars that northwest electric ratepayers paid to recover the salmon in the Northwest. To lose it for one short summer of staving off brown outs in California is poor policy. Particularly, when they refuse to implement basic conservation measures.
     
    smc likes this.
  15. kurtataltos

    kurtataltos Active Member

    Water usage needs a bit of context. Raising prices on home owners isn't it.
    77-80% of the water goes to farmers. Top uses, in order, from #1:
    Alfafa
    Pasture
    Rice
    Cotton
    Pistachios/almonds

    The beef lobbies want no water conservation yet they are the prominent users. Rice??? Redding, CA, is h-o-t in the summer. Yet fields are flooded for rice. CA is the largest producer of cotton in the U.S. Maybe it should be #2 or #3. Pistachios and almonds? Like them but, frankly, could care less if I never saw them again.

    Jacking up prices to home owners doesn't deal with the largest, by far, slice of the pie. It sounds nice but doesn't address the problem. There are major parts of the state that are and have been desert. When you try to farm desert or build millions of homes in the desert there are costs.

    Moonbeam is in the pockets of unions. Don't expect help from him.
     
  16. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Kurtataltos,

    I realize that ag uses more water than muni, but tiered pricing would work effectively for both. Farmers tend to be fond of the least efficient irrigation methods when the cost of water is cheap. Impose tiered pricing and they will become as efficient in irrigation as Israel, where no drop is wasted, or so I'm told. That would certainly get the state through the immediate drought problem, and could cause less future development in the desert. Of course the real need is for a planning commission to say, "that's a nice development plan you've got there, however the local water purveyor is prohibited from supplying even one drop of water to it." As long as irrational planning is allowed, it will continue to occur. And it doesn't seem irrational so long as there is some dimbulb who says, "yeah, I'll supply subsidized water to your desert plan."

    Sg
     
  17. fredaevans

    fredaevans Active Member


    Not quite that steep, but that's just exactly how our electric bills are calculated here in southern Oregon. Only problem is, is that no mater how few lights you use (to stay under the minimum) there's a minimum charge regardless. Can't win.
     
  18. _WW_

    _WW_ Fishes with Wolves

    Am I the only one that keeps installing more efficient light bulbs and yet my power bill never goes down?
     
    fredaevans likes this.
  19. Chris Bellows

    Chris Bellows Your Preferred WFF Poster

    they're not to far ahead of the vast majority in the Northwest.
     
    fredaevans likes this.
  20. Bruce Baker

    Bruce Baker Active Member