California Drought Made Worse by Environmental Laws...

[amicus]

A 'sound bite' basically, on the news...California drought in third year...California produces half of all fruits and vegetables for the US and environmental laws are making the problem worse.


http://www.radanovich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=112145

“The devastating news of a zero percent water allocation from the Bureau was an inevitability that the farming community has long feared.

“The zero percent allocation was inevitable because until we stand up for the good of the general population, and correctly give priority to the unalienable rights of humans before insignificant fish, we will forever be slaves to misguided and tyrannical environmental laws.


“The failure of a successful agriculture industry in the San Joaquin Valley reaches far beyond the confines of the individual farm. A crippled Valley agriculture industry will cast a broad stroke of socioeconomic hardships across our region at a time when we are already greatly suffering. Further, those who depend on safe, reliable, affordable and nutritious food from our Valley have now been told the health and well being of their families is less important than a three inch fish.

~~~

The continued silliness of the Environmental Lobby is beginning to reap results, maybe even the kind they really want, starvation and devastation for business and agriculture in the Golden State.

Will the madness never stop?

Amicus...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

A 'sound bite' basically, on the news...California drought in third year...California produces half of all fruits and vegetables for the US and environmental laws are making the problem worse.


http://www.radanovich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=112145



~~~

The continued silliness of the Environmental Lobby is beginning to reap results, maybe even the kind they really want, starvation and devastation for business and agriculture in the Golden State.

Will the madness never stop?

Amicus...

Do you mind looking up some facts before spouting off? The "California drought" is vastly overstated by developers looking to dig canals and build dams. As of this morning, the current snow pack is at 80% average and the reservoirs are at nearly that before snowmelt. Additionally, we have another storm due tomorrow. Leave off the hysteria until the rainy season is finished as the federal bureaucrats have also been advised to do.

 

[amicus]

Nice try VM, but the television report also said that even if there was 125% normal rainfall, reservoirs would still only be at one third capacity. That Environmental laws prevented building new reservoirs or drilling new wells for ground water. They are considering investing in Nuclear Desalinization Plants just to provide sufficient drinking water for the what, 30 million residents of that State?

Environmental activists have created a disaster over the past thirty years and it is time to pay the piper.

And I intend to play that flute in as many ways as I can. You folks deserve all the credit for destroying an economy.

Amicus...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Nice try, Ami, but drop the soundbites and read.

 

[amicus]

Sound bites dropped, now you drop the Los Angeles Times as a source of information and let us view the facts.

http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/features/cadrought.html

http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/hydrology/state_fd/cawater1.html (outdated but an interesting history)

http://drought.unl.edu/DM/MONITOR.HTML

~~~

I do not recall stating that it was the 'worst' drought, but the Southwest has a history of drought conditions which you will find referenced in the above links.

The point was and is, that environmental laws and regulations have placed the welfare of fish and other species over human concerns. This is a policy rampant throughout the Environmentalist Mantra and the current drought conditions in California and Texas are just examples of the consequences of unwise legislation.

In your fervent zeal to preserve the environment, for what, nobody knows, you display a lack of concern for the welfare of your fellow humans.

It is the same misguided faith that has led to California's energy crisis, no new power plants or refineries allowed, to the huge expediture in alternative energy scams which have added little to the energy pool because of more environmental laws that forbid the construction of power lines to transmit the power from the source to the consumer.

As I said and say again, a generation of environmental activists, an anti-industrial mentality, an anti-growth and anti-business atmosphere, now has the State on its heels and on the verge of bankruptcy.

Both business and people are leaving the State in increasing numbers for the reasons stated above.

Perhaps you would care to defend and justify the results of this Environmental assault on humanity?

Amicus...

 

[Boxlicker101]

It does seem silly to hear people carping about "the drought" when it's pouring rain like it was this morning, and as it has been for the last month.

The city of L. A. wants to build what is called the peripheral canal, which is an expensive ditch that would draw water from the big rivers in NoCal and send it to L. A., with some stops in the Central Valley. It's expensive and wasteful because so much water would be lost to evaporation and it would actually threaten the commercial fishing industry in the Bay Area because of polution and over-salinization.

 

[amicus]

It rather surprised me to hear the newscast also, Box, my daughter in San Diego was ecstatic over the recent rainfall...but she did speak of it as a rarity, which, having lived there some years ago, it does not rain, ahm, it never rains in southern california....

There have been 'water rights' conflicts over the years in several States, Colorado, New Mexico and Oregon, as I recall, as a result of environment laws that have curtailed usage in some areas to benefit wildlife, habitat just plain old scenery.

To hammer away at my point yet again, when environmental laws promote the welfare of animal species over man and his livlihood, there is reason to question the sociological and philosophical tenets of those of those who promote such ideas.

There is an even deeper philosophical divide here, one that reflects a belief that the land is at the disposal of government e.g., the majority, to decide how it is used. That is in direct contravention of the letter and spirit of our founding documents wherein the government is to act as 'steward' to the land until it is needed by individuals who can purchase, own and maintain the land.

If I had my way, I would have the Government pay lease fees to whoever owned the land under the White House.

Government should not own land, that is the right of the individual.

Amicus...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Not a very impressive set of references, Ami, since the most recent is 2/24 and the rain season still has two months to go. One of them doesn't even open. Try again.

BTW, I'm not making any defense for the environmental hysterics. I don't have to. They haven't had any effect on national or state policy for nearly 20 years. Just ask them.

Of course, if you did, it would spoil your worldview. Terribly sorry about that.

 

[amicus]

"...BTW, I'm not making any defense for the environmental hysterics. I don't have to. They haven't had any effect on national or state policy for nearly 20 years. Just ask them..."

~~~

No effect on national or state policy? Ya gotta be kiddin' me, kid!

The billions spent within the hysteria of the global warming farce is a quick and easy refutation of your claim.

But I give you this...you put up a good fight...even if you are totally wrong.



Ami....

 

[voluptuary_manque]

~~~

No effect on national or state policy? Ya gotta be kiddin' me, kid!

The billions spent within the hysteria of the global warming farce is a quick and easy refutation of your claim.

But I give you this...you put up a good fight...even if you are totally wrong.



Ami....

You're talking international policy. Not much is happening on this side of the pond. What may happen later remains to be seen.

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii177/1volupturary_manque/peacepipe.jpg

 

[Boxlicker101]

BTW, I'm not making any defense for the environmental hysterics. I don't have to. They haven't had any effect on national or state policy for nearly 20 years. Just ask them.

Of course, if you did, it would spoil your worldview. Terribly sorry about that.
__________________
voluptuary_manque'

No effect on national or state policy? Ya gotta be kiddin' me, kid!

The billions spent within the hysteria of the global warming farce is a quick and easy refutation of your claim.

But I give you this...you put up a good fight...even if you are totally wrong.



Ami....

I think if you look at the lack of nuclear power plants, you will see some other effects. This "no effect" they might claim probably just means not as much effect as they want to have.

 

[JackLuis]

For those of you who are not up on California's water wars, The three inch fish that the government is trying to save is the basis of the food chain in the Sacramento Delta. And the basis for a large part of West Coast Fishing both commercial and Sport which is not an inconsiderable amount of money for our economy.

Since the water diversion from the delta changed the flow pattern of the 1,000+ miles of waterways in the delta and the little fish get sucked into the pumps near Tracy and chopped into bits. The food chain is robbed of it basis. Fish in the Delta are at the lowest levels in Modern history. I say that form having fished the Delta over 30 years.

The pumps are large enough to completely change the flow of water from the San Francisco Bay toward the aqueduct that drains the 2 largest rivers in California down into the Central Valley and even down to Los Angles, where it is pumped over a low range of hills into the LA Basin.

This is but one of the myriad water sources that the Metro Area uses to irrigate their lawns and fill their pools. One entire Valley, the Owens was decimated when the LA Water Dept bought up the rights to ALL the water in the Owens River.

One of the greatest Treasures in California is water. A drought, like we are in always causes the Southern Valley Ranchers a lot of fear and lusting. After all if the water is rationed tightly the subsidies for Cotton don't get paid and the Corporate Farms get the Legislature all in an uproar about, Fish or Farms!

Amicus is saying the he cares not that we have almost broken the ecology of the Delta, only that Property must be Preserved!

He apparently knows so little about practical matters that he does not care that thousands of jobs and Billions of dollars in our fishing industries are at risk by the Southland's thirst for even more water when they have drained almost a third of the state already and consumed most of the water that was used in the agriculture south of Bakersfield.

It is time for the Southland to realize that they, like the Republicans, must learn to exist on the resources in their area. Dig up your water wasting lawns and plant native grasses. Gather the rain water in cisterns like we did years ago. Or, reduce the population in Southern California into a sustainable level. Preferably the latter, about 2 million might fit the water in LA county, might be able to support 5 Million if they recovered all the pissing an moaning we get every time they can't build another set of Mc Mansions due to water scarcity.

So an insignificant seeming fish is the down fall of the California Empire. For without the little fish the ecology dies and soon San Francisco is looking for food further south and;

"Boy if we just dug up all those empty houses where the Capitalist Hords encamped we could have a really nice Orange Grove, there is plenty of water now that the population is down to 100,000 after the food riots."

 

[amicus]

Ruling to protect delta smelt may force water rationing in Bay Area

Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer


Saturday, September 1, 2007

Environmentalists contend a limited water supply might impress upon the farmers the realities of global warming, thereby forcing them to grow more sustainable crops and install more efficient irrigation systems.

~~~

Nowhere in the rather long article does it refer to 'bottom of the food chain', but that still remains possible even if undocumented.

"..."Boy if we just dug up all those empty houses where the Capitalist Hords encamped we could have a really nice Orange Grove, there is plenty of water now that the population is down to 100,000 after the food riots."

It's 'hordes' dear boy, but I think we know where you are coming from.

And who would be the 'we' that you refer to above? San Luis Obispo...? does memory serve?

So...you wanna give it back to the Mexicans or do you just hate mankind in general?

Dear AH'ers, who still have some rationality left, that post is a perfect example of the madness, the rampant theology of Environmentalism that thrives on pushing for the extinction of life as you know it...not just in good old California, but everywhere.

Read it and weep my friends, the damage done already is monumental and with crazies like this on the loose, it has only just begun. (song by Carpenters)

Amicus...

 

[JackLuis]

Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer


Saturday, September 1, 2007




~~~

Nowhere in the rather long article does it refer to 'bottom of the food chain', but that still remains possible even if undocumented.




Perhaps if you read more than one article it might inform you better. I know, so little time so many "Liberal Windmills to Tilt"

Cheer up, The Governator may just solve all our problems like he has the energy and budget crisis.

Did you see the latest Peripheral Canal ideas? Rather than take the water from the southern end of the delta, they want to take the water out of the Sacramento River above Sacramento so it never even gets to the Delta. Wonderful thinking that.

One of the reasons that California Fishing is in such an dismal state is due to water diversions. Another is the overfishing of the depleted stocks that remain.

You and I are lucky, we're old enough to die before the whole thing collapses into scattered bands of hunter gatherers in outlining areas of our moldering cities.

With our mighty Congress looking after us, I'd say another 75-100 years and we'll have done something so stupid that who ever survives won't be able to read the Constitution much less care what it is.

Oh and thanks for the spelling help. Hordes is a tough one to edit.

 

[amicus]

Hmmm...yes, many left wing progressive liberal causes I disdain and I wax and wane with energy to address them all.

I make no bones about my position, nor do I apologize in the least, I would be the antithesis of Joannie Mitchell's song, I would put 'em in a tree museum and I would pave it for a parking lot.

But I remain curious as you your motivations as I do for most who espouse your beliefs.

I value human life above all other values, each life is special, unique and meaningful and should not be wasted.

What is your motivation? The expressed hatred of modern man, his cities, his achievements?

I will listen/read as I truly do wish to understand why you value the things you do over mankind.

That truly has puzzled me for ages and anyone who would care to take a whack at educating me would be appreciated.

Amicus...

 

[JackLuis]

Hmmm...yes, many left wing progressive liberal causes I disdain and I wax and wane with energy to address them all.

I make no bones about my position, nor do I apologize in the least, I would be the antithesis of Joannie Mitchell's song, I would put 'em in a tree museum and I would pave it for a parking lot.

But I remain curious as you your motivations as I do for most who espouse your beliefs.

I value human life above all other values, each life is special, unique and meaningful and should not be wasted.

What is your motivation? The expressed hatred of modern man, his cities, his achievements?

I will listen/read as I truly do wish to understand why you value the things you do over mankind.

That truly has puzzled me for ages and anyone who would care to take a whack at educating me would be appreciated.

Amicus...

I do value mankind. That is why I also value that which allows we humans to live on this planet. I find that many "Capitalists" or "Conservatives" only think about how anything effects them directly, not caring I guess about how man is indirectly effecting his environment.

We hear a lot about "unintended consequences", which I feel is due to ignorance of the facts, particularly history.

GWB didn't think it was morally wrong to start a war over 3,000 casualties. There are now the unintended consequence of it costing 4,000+ more U.S. deaths and the bankruptcy of the United States, but it was "unintended".

Would we be in the same place economically anyway with the housing Bubble bursting and Credit Default Swaps and all? Probably but the new President would have a better chance of balancing the books with a trillion less debt if Bush had just chased Bin Laden rather than invading Iraq.

One thing I see in Europe is the understanding that the land, rivers and forests are much more valued than in America. They have lived through the ravaging of the land for hundreds of years and are more respectful of their resources than the average American.

But you started this whining about water and three inch fish. If you are really interested in the issue you might read a little more, for a year or so before you spout off about human needs versus the needs of little fish.

We live in a symbiotic system and we need to know how we can survive in our real world not in the world as you imagine it to be.

 

[DeeZire]

We live in a symbiotic system and we need to know how we can survive in our real world not in the world as you imagine it to be.

That's Ami's problem - he's incapable of coping with the real world, since it doesn't match the world he imagines in his head. Everything he posts here is based on an alternate, ideal reality that has nothing to do with real life.

 

[amicus]

Hmmm...well, first off, thank you for the information, the way you see the world.

First off, man, the only sentient creature on earth, does not have a symbiotic relationship with nature and other lifeforms.

As most of nature is an evolutionary predator and prey system, homo sapiens can change his environment and not just adapt to it, we can and do live anywhere on the planet.

Procreation is another aspect of sentience, in the plant and animal world, procreation takes place with the maximum efficiency and profligacy possible in the environment of the life form.

Man can limit his procreation and with the advent of the industrial revolution, producing a surplus of food, goods and services, we do not need to procreate each time a female is fertile.

It then becomes a matter of individual choice, at least in a society that protects individual rights and choices, as to how many progeny he creates.

The Germans experimented with eugenics, intended to create a master race, the Chinese limit children to one per family and Africa, for the most part, is still in a primeval state.

As man gained supremacy and mastered nature and the environment, it became a matter of political choice as to how his particular society dealt with the environment and nature itself.

As far back as the history of man provides a record, people have gathered in larger and larger communities, tilled the land, grew crops, domesticated animals and slowly learned how not to poison himself with the waste material he created.

Unless you advocate the use of force to limit the number of people in your particular society, then the population, the number of people, is a matter of individual preference.

There are hundreds of apocryphal fictions about the future of man's demise in a polluted and over populated world, or one of complete pollution or radioactive leftovers from a nuclear war. None of that need happen.

There is a basic and inevitable conflict between a million buffalo roaming the plains or herds of elephants on the rampage where man has decided to settle.

The evolution of man changed, without a doubt, the balance between the wilderness and the chosen habitat of man.

It would serve no purpose to enter into a political debate with you over Bush or any other national leader and the politics of the modern world.

This is a philosophical disagreement. I love nature and wildlife as much as any one, but not at the expense of the comfort and life of men, women and children.

I would have thought the buffalo could have been domesticated rather than populate the grass lands with cattle, but then, I am not an expert in such things.

The natural run of Salmon in rivers is nice, but a hydro electric dam that supplies electricity to millions of people far outweighs the niceties of preserving fish runs.

The Redwood forest is magnificent, I have seen it, but if man needs the land to expand with homes and businesses and yes, even shopping malls, I vote for the man and not the tree.

I have a running battle with the adorable Cloudy here, a Native American who wishes the old ways of her people could be again, where the land was used by all but owned by none.

Manhattan was a swamp when the evil white man took it and built perhaps the most magnificent city on the face of the earth, New York, New York...

I do not for a new york minute feel any regret that man has conquered nature and improved his standard of living beyond any known before. I don't particularly enjoy the aesthetics of a strip mall, but it serves a purpose.

Nor am I the least bit nostalgic about living with outdoor privies, ice boxes and coal furnaces in the basement, all of which were a part of my childhood.

I am proud beyond words of the magnificence of the creations of modern man and although it will not become necessary, if zoos and acquariums were the only place to view the wildlife of the world, then so be it for the benefit of man.

In a free country, you have a right to express your opinions and even join together and lobby to create the kind of world you envision. I have the same right and I suggest you lose and I win as man continues to change and modify the environment to suit his needs.

What bothers me is the combined ethic of those who would sacrifice the comfort and indeed the growth of man to an era past, that of pristine nature before man. There is an inherent immorality in that concept, which implies to me a self hatred and a hatred of man and all that he is.

Guess that will suffice for now.

Thank you for your patience if indeed you read this.

Amicus...

 

[Handprints]

Ami, I must confess I'm shocked. You and I disagree about a number of things but I can always count on you to start from a set of well-articulated and invariable moral principles. And here you are, defending the beneficiaries of one of the most notorious pieces of looting (in the exact Randian sense) the West has ever seen.

Go back over the history of post-war agriculture in California and you will be inflamed by what you read. A truly incredible amount of public money was spent to give a few politically-connected beneficiaries the opportunity to grow monsoon crops in one of America's driest regions. A 1940's California orange baron would have made a perfect character to join the union heads and the bailout addicts in Atlas. (Hell, I'm surprised Rand was so slow to pick up on it - it took Robert Towne in Chinatown to put the history into the public consciousness.)

I thought you'd be in favor of anything that makes such looting's continuing benefits unavailable to the fraudsters. I'd have been certain that you'd be against the most recent looting wannabes - the property developers - being allowed to dip their beaks.

I'm shocked, and not in the "gambling in Casablanca" sense, either.

H

 

[JackLuis]

Hmmm...well, first off, thank you for the information, the way you see the world.

First off, man, the only sentient creature on earth, does not have a symbiotic relationship with nature and other lifeforms.

Thank you for your patience if indeed you read this.

Amicus...

I did indeed read your concept of the world. I find it woefully uninformed about the impact that man has made on our poor planet. I grant you that the symbiosis of man is not as tightly coupled as other relationships.

But the subject was water and tiny fish. The tiny fish that support the ecology of the Delta. You do not seem to understand that man can not disrupt the balance of life without consequences.

Providing for the "Comfort of Man" was what made the Potomac River a sewer years ago. So much so that people can not bathe in it or eat the fish in it even yet.

I'd hate to see that happen to the Sacramento River. Diverting the water to LA and the central Valley farms at the expense of the Delta's ecology is not going to help mankind, just a very few farms, that are mostly owned by corporations.

I agree that we will not change each other's minds so the subject is mute. While you appear to be well educated in many things, you do not appear to have listened in biology or absorbed ethics. You also do not appear to have an open mind. I fear that your attitude to this problem can not be changed at all. So I guess we disagree.

Oh and I cherish the modern world. I just hope that we can learn how to adjust our lives so that we can have flush toilets and rivers that are not sewers.

I too have Native American ancestors and appreciate the idea that Man is a steward, not the master of nature.

 

[amicus]

Handprints...Interesting...

If I may, a set of stipulations, most of which I have made at one time or another here and elsewhere.

I am not an 'expert', in any specific field of knowledge or endeavor. True, I became one of the top few in the area I did choose, mainly so as to sustain myself. But that was a choice made early on and a conscious choice at that.

Based on a perceived axiom, that one who focuses on one area only, competes to be the 'best', one does so at the sacrifice of time and thought addressed other subject.

I will not be so bold as to call myself a 'philosopher', I dumped out of that major when a final exam contained the question, "What is the name of Plato's mother...?" I tore the exam book neatly in half and dropped it ceremoniously into the trash can next to the professors desk.

I had been prepared for a much more stringent examination.

I am also not knowledgeable enough about you to 'claim' that you have ignored some subjects to become 'expert' in your chosen field, however, your nuanced dance around some basic concepts concerning human nature, raises that possiblity.

Now....I have perused more California Water History, to respond to you and JackLuis, than I really needed to know, but, as always, the research was educational and informative and adds to the overall store of somewhat useless knowledge I have accumulated in a lifetime.

~~~

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/WRCA/exhibit.html



Irrigation and Water Rights

In 1879, California's "Cattle King," Henry Miller and his partner, Charles Lux, filed for an injunction against irrigation developer James Ben Ali Haggin. At issue was water from the Kern River in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Miller held that his Riparian right to the river, rooted in English Common Law and the California Constitution, prevented anyone else from taking water which he needed to grow grass along the river to feed his livestock. Haggin countered that appropriating the water into a canal which ran some distance from the river improved the land through irrigation.

The Riparian Doctrine comes from English Common Law and holds that the owner of a riverbank owns the right to water flowing past the property. It does not allow water rights attached to the property to be separated from it. The principle of Appropriation, however, provides that the first person to divert water from a stream has the right to continue diverting as much as needed, even if the water is transported to a location remote from the stream. The appropriator has the right to the water itself, separate from any rights to the land adjacent to the stream from which it is taken. The conflict between these two principles resulted in the "California Doctrine" of dual water rights, established by the State Supreme Court in the case of Lux v. Haggin in 1886.

~~~

The Environmental Movement

Over the last three decades, there has been increasing environmental opposition to the construction of dams in California. In addition, river rafters and recreational fishing enthusiasts have fought against river developments that would destroy natural features of the streams. The Dos Rios Project, the Clavey River Project, and Auburn Dam have all gone down to defeat. The Dos Rios Project would have inundated Round Valley in Mendocino County in order to transfer Eel River water to Southern California. The Clavey River Project, to be built on a tributary of the Tuolumne River in Tuolumne County, was to provide water and hydroelectric power to Turlock Irrigation District. Auburn Dam was first authorized by Congress in 1965 to be built on the North Fork of the American River. Proponents of the dam say that it will provide much needed flood protection for Sacramento; opponents point out that there are other flood control alternatives which are more economically and environmentally sound. Construction actually began in 1967 but was halted for seismic safety reasons. Since then, seismic, economic, and environmental concerns have prevented completion of the dam. In June 1996, federal funding for Auburn Dam was denied for the second time. Congressional supporters of the dam have vowed to continue to fight for its construction.

~~~

Property rights, along with mineral rights and water rights to private owners, is a relatively new area of contention that arose with the advent of the US and the philosophical and economical premises that rights resided in the individual and not the State. (For newcomers to the thoughts, that is an important statement)

It has been a long and winding road(Beatles), as the conflict between the public and private sector has raged, for centuries, over where individual rights and public welfare come into disagreement. I need not add, but I will, the political atmosphere at any given time, at local, state and federal levels, and of course the Judicial system, from the County Judge to the Supreme Courts all the way to the top.

There was then, as there is now, corruption at all levels of government, industry and labor, each following the natural inclination to look out for number one first.

This applies equally to Environmentalists who have transferred the personal agenda of an individual, to the social agenda of the public at large, their rational self interest(rand) has accrued an almost religious fervor of altruism, wherein their personal identity has been sacrificed for the greater good.

On another level, one also chosen by Rand, the History of Railroads in America is also filled with political and industrial corruption al the way to the Supreme Court.

I am not a Property Law Attorney either and those who interpret the law and exploit it to their clients benefit, is also an area rife with corruption and pay-offs.

There is no God to insure Justice, nor is there a shared, innate conscience, that automatically functions to instruct man on complex issues; it requires mental acuity and focus. In other words, the actions of those who participated in the California Water History and every other endeavor were of a political and philosophical nature with each following his own direction, the accumulation of which, brings us, in all things, to the present time.

The present time, as I see it, in your case, doing financial matters on a global basis amidst developing nations, in my case, attempting to comprehend the complexities of the history of man and his actions from what has become a non participatory vantage point.

It benefits you and many others, to employ a sliding scale of moral and ethical foundations, capable of adjusting to the relative environment you are immersed in.

I understand that and do not fault most who trumpet their conceptions here and elsewhere.

I am, as it were, still searching for that Rosetta Stone that will provide an Einsteinian Unified Field Theory of everything...chuckles...rather a thankless task as even my children raise their eyebrows at some of my thoughts.

Thank you for the input.

Regards...

Amicus....

 

[JackLuis]

Handprints...Interesting...

If I may, a set of stipulations, most of which I have made at one time or another here and elsewhere.


Thank you for the input.

Regards...

Amicus....

I see you did do some research and it appears you researched Water Rights. California Law is filled with such cases.

How ever you did not address the issue you brought up in this thread, Fish versus Farms. While I laud your research, it does not address the issue and only confuses the discussion, because you did not set forth what the dual water rights. And 1877 is a long time back.

Since I doubt either of us will change our minds, I say I hope the rains keeps coming.

 

[amicus]

JackLuis:

"...Since I doubt either of us will change our minds, I say I hope the rains keeps coming..."

~~~

I will join you and hope for rain.

This might be an appropriate time to respond, as I thought to earlier, to your, 'fish versus farm'.

I offer you the synthesis: Fish Farms...

A greater and greater amount of fish protein is being harvested from fish farms all over the world. That permits the highest and best use of land and water, namely agriculture and expansion, while preserving the food value of ocean products.

I know full well that will not sate the appetite of the environmentalists for continued oposition to every possible project that man can think of to improve his life.

As I have said, and say again, this is a philosophical disagreement, you want to turn the Orange Groves back into arid desert, for God knows only what reason, and I enjoy an affordable glass of Orange Juice with my ham and eggs in the morning.

I knew a lovely young lady in college, who, after every wind and rainstorm, went out and collected the baby birds blown from their springtime nests. I smiled at her compassion.

I suppose the world needs the effete concern you and others express over baby birds and three inch smelt, but enough is enough and when it becomes a conflict between my morning orange juice and your smelt, you lose.

I hate smelt and sardines, except for bait.

Amicus

 

[DeeZire]

I suppose the world needs the effete concern you and others express over baby birds and three inch smelt, but enough is enough and when it becomes a conflict between my morning orange juice and your smelt, you lose.

Is it ignorance or arrogance that gives you the idea that humans and the environment do not have a symbiotic relationship?

Consider the plight of Haiti, where only 3% of the forests remain.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event_summary&event_id=195715

Decades of unplanned and unsustainable timber harvesting, agricultural clearing, and livestock cultivation have thrown Haiti’s environment into crisis, exacerbating the effects of hurricanes and floods on the already unstable country. Under Congressional directive, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is formulating a plan to help improve the country’s watershed management, forestry and agriculture practices, and rural livelihoods, and thus reduce its people’s vulnerability to natural disasters.

Assessing Haiti’s vulnerability to natural disasters requires examining the inter-relationships among population, health, and environmental factors, asserted Rochelle Rainy of USAID’s Global Health Bureau. Not only does Haiti’s growing population stress the environment, environmental degradation negatively impacts human health. Lack of clean water, poor food security, and indoor air pollution help explain why Haiti has the lowest life expectancy and highest child and maternal mortality rates in the Western hemisphere.

So, how do you champion human freedom on one hand and on the other approve of a lower life expectancy due to environment degradation? Or is "life" simply a term appropriate for abortion discussions but off the table once that life actually has to start interacting with the real world?

Ami, your head is so far up your ass I'm surprised your posts aren't in brown.

 

[amicus]

I don't mind debating with avid left wingers except that they are usually, almost to a person, foul mouthed when they run out of excuses and the means to conduct a civil exchange of ideas.

"...Dr. François Duvalier, known as "Papa Doc", was the President of Haiti from 1957 to 1971. In 1964 he made himself President for Life. He ruled until his death in 1971, in a regime marked by autocracy, corruption, and state-sponsored terrorism through his private militia..."

~~~

'papa doc' came to mind as I read your post concerning Haiti, that and recent television promo's inviting people to vacation there.

'Property Rights', didn't and probably don't, exist in Haiti. If Duvalier found a profit to be had by denuding the Island, I have no doubts that he did just that.

Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938 by Standard Oil of California, hired to explore for water under the desert. The rush was on as more and more Sheiks and tribal rulers sought to 'capitalize' on that abundant natural resource.

That is a common act in nations where there are no individual property rights and that the means of production, land and resources, belongs to the State, ahm, thas just what you want to instill here so that 'your' government could exploit resources according to its own agenda.

Clean up your act a little, your distress is showing. heh.

Amicus...