4 ms·

Northern California ranchers defy state orders to cut water usage

41 points by 8bitsrule 4y ago

frankharv 4y ago
Watching this man made catastrophe play out before my eyes is painful. Water Wars. Why don't Discovery make a show about these idiots. Why can't I grow almonds in the middle of a desert? Quora: Why is my dock 40 feet above water level of Lake Mead??? The East Coast loves these antics!!! Make it a show. Those crazy Kalifornians. Why they even denied Desalinization Plants would make a hilarious pilot episode...
refurb 4y ago
Presumably this is how the centuries old water rights all get figure out - through the courts. The waters right work fine when there is enough water, but when there isn’t - well, they need to figure how to make it work with less.
- hulitu 4y ago
  - mrcheesebreeze 4y ago
    What do you mean? California is a blue state which means its flawless and its not run by the same jerks but in another color! /s
bergenty 4y ago
- pjc50 4y ago
  Neither the ranchers nor the endangered fish are going to be able to afford the output of those.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    But the state of california would pay for it and has a huge tax base. It wouldn't be cheap but isn't completely infeasible. Especially since water intensive agriculture tends to produce very expensive crops (nuts, avocados etc.). My back of the napkin is $20 billion capex based on existing water usage and existing desal plants.
    - akudha 4y ago
      Why do we need to grow nuts and avocados in California in the first place, during a drought? It is not like these are staple crops and are needed for humans to survive, right? If tax payers pay for any solution, what guarantees do they have that these solutions will end up only benefiting some rich farmers and not everyone? Wouldn’t it be sensible to just stop growing water intensive crops in drought areas? Across the world I mean, not just California. Especially if those crops are “nice to have”?
      - onetokeoverthe 4y ago
      - brutusborn 4y ago
        I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea, just that it is probably economically feasible.
    - mrcheesebreeze 4y ago
      Do you really think california would do something that helps the people? That hellhole state is the kind of place that demolishes free homes built for the homeless.
      - bergenty 4y ago
        That’s borderline delusional. California is probably one of the cushiest states for the homeless.
- survirtual 4y ago
  *nuclear powered
lacker 4y ago
I feel like the title of this article is misleading. The state orders have exceptions listed and the ranchers want to use these exceptions. The Shasta River Water Association sent a letter to the Division of Water Rights Deputy Director Erik Ekdahl, informing the agency of plans to defy the curtailment order through exceptions listed by the order. It just seems like a normal legal dispute about what exactly the rules are, rather than plain old "defiance".

41 points by 8bitsrule 4y ago

Watching this man made catastrophe play out before my eyes is painful. Water Wars. Why don't Discovery make a show about these idiots. Why can't I grow almonds in the middle of a desert? Quora: Why is my dock 40 feet above water level of Lake Mead??? The East Coast loves these antics!!! Make it a show. Those crazy Kalifornians. Why they even denied Desalinization Plants would make a hilarious pilot episode...

refurb 4y ago

Presumably this is how the centuries old water rights all get figure out - through the courts. The waters right work fine when there is enough water, but when there isn’t - well, they need to figure how to make it work with less.

hulitu 4y ago
- mrcheesebreeze 4y ago
  What do you mean? California is a blue state which means its flawless and its not run by the same jerks but in another color! /s

bergenty 4y ago

pjc50 4y ago
Neither the ranchers nor the endangered fish are going to be able to afford the output of those.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  But the state of california would pay for it and has a huge tax base. It wouldn't be cheap but isn't completely infeasible. Especially since water intensive agriculture tends to produce very expensive crops (nuts, avocados etc.). My back of the napkin is $20 billion capex based on existing water usage and existing desal plants.
  - akudha 4y ago
    Why do we need to grow nuts and avocados in California in the first place, during a drought? It is not like these are staple crops and are needed for humans to survive, right? If tax payers pay for any solution, what guarantees do they have that these solutions will end up only benefiting some rich farmers and not everyone? Wouldn’t it be sensible to just stop growing water intensive crops in drought areas? Across the world I mean, not just California. Especially if those crops are “nice to have”?
    - onetokeoverthe 4y ago
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea, just that it is probably economically feasible.
  - mrcheesebreeze 4y ago
    Do you really think california would do something that helps the people? That hellhole state is the kind of place that demolishes free homes built for the homeless.
    - bergenty 4y ago
      That’s borderline delusional. California is probably one of the cushiest states for the homeless.
survirtual 4y ago
*nuclear powered

lacker 4y ago

I feel like the title of this article is misleading. The state orders have exceptions listed and the ranchers want to use these exceptions. The Shasta River Water Association sent a letter to the Division of Water Rights Deputy Director Erik Ekdahl, informing the agency of plans to defy the curtailment order through exceptions listed by the order. It just seems like a normal legal dispute about what exactly the rules are, rather than plain old "defiance".