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

"Agri- businesses and sportsman's' interests (fish survival) are being short changed daily."
Mutually exclusive, agribusiness wants every drop, no compromise.

Not even going to address your political rant (want to keep Mod's off our back) other than to say he's doing a lot better than his predecessor, that action-hero knucklehead. Paying taxes is part of living in a community, if you don't like paying them, move to Alaska and live off the grid like I did for 10 years. They are very low in Texas, try that.
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.


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.



Well-Known 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.

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.


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


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.

Vladimir Steblina

Retired fishing instead of working
Well, back on 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:

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.

Vladimir Steblina

Retired 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.
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:

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.