5 ms·
The headline will always be technically true but it's not interesting. The state has dramatically, both at a state level and at a county level, put into place b
by barathr 4y ago
The headline will always be technically true but it's not interesting. The state has dramatically, both at a state level and at a county level, put into place better plans for infiltration, reuse, agricultural groundwater recharge, and more. Of course there's more to be done, but it's not nothing. (This is NYT going for a clickbait-y headline that isn't technically untrue, IMHO.)
If you're interested in California weather, read weatherwest.com
Edit to add: "During the dry years, the people forgot about the rich years, and when the wet years returned, they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way." (East of Eden)
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y agoDaniel Swain’s blog is great, but it’s about weather and climate. This article is about water use policy, and points to a real problem.
- barathr 4y agoHe covers these topics from time to time and the comments there are a wealth of information about what's going on in every pocket of the state.
- rektide 4y agoHas California done a single thing to curb the vast "water-rights" that were given out so long ago? My understanding is there are still obscenely water-inefficient crops being grown at huge scale & the ever dwindling water supply has impacted almost everyone but the worst offenders, who just so happen to have some very old "right" which overrides seemingly all human need. This feels like an abomination.
- miguelazo 4y agoNot exclusive to California and very difficult to address from a legal (and political standpoint).
- rektide 4y agoPeople keep saying that it's difficult to address, but it's such a gross gross deep & harmful iniquity. Trying to keep absurd promises that could never be satisfied going as long as possible, and leaving the rest of civilization out to dry to do it, needs to face the reckoning it inevitiably smashes us all upon sooner. Do it now. This may be "legal" but it's deeply immoral & unjust & it's perpetuation de-legtimizes the idea of government rather than preserves it. These promises of rights were vastly out of proportion. They were granted at no charge. We should have no compunction about saying no, now, while there is still some water left in the west & not just after it's gone & these folk again are left with nothing or radically reduced water. Letting the crisis overcome us & being afraid to rescind that-which-was-never-available is cowardly, invites true disaster.
- miguelazo 4y agoCouldn't agree with you more, but that doesn't change the political dynamics in place. Until Californians rise up against the real estate and big ag interests that control the state, things will stay the same. California has a reputation for being liberal and progressive, but that's really only in comparison to other retrograde states. It has gotten pretty conservative on all but social issues since the 1970s (and there are glaring hypocrisies on the social front as well when marginalized groups were involved).
- jjeaff 4y agoWe can take land away from people to build a football stadium using imminent domain. Seems like water for the entire state would be a much more reasonable use of imminent domain.
- miguelazo 4y agoTo be clear, I fully agree that the water laws should be changed. I'm saying that based on the nature and longevity of the laws, along with the political dynamics of the state (controlled by real state and big ag interests), it is extremely difficult to change them. It's usually poor neighborhoods that get bulldozed and gentrified for a football stadium, so not an apt comparison. There are some good proposals out there: https://law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk10866/files/media/documents/SanFranciscoChronicleOpEd.pdf https://law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk10866/files/medi...
- miguelazo 4y agoExcellent points. NYT generally does a terrible job of California coverage.