2 ms·

The regional water boards in California, along with the local water districts, have ample amounts of all of the above dating back to 1967 and beyond, funded by

by wooster 12y ago

The regional water boards in California, along with the local water districts, have ample amounts of all of the above dating back to 1967 and beyond, funded by taxpayers, with publicly available data, and in most cases involving said farmers. Feel free to look at the data and get back with your findings. In the meantime, no, "someone thinking about it more" isn't irrelevant. They've been thinking about it more, and taking action, for decades.

jsprogrammer 12y ago
If you can't link me straight to what you're talking about, then it isn't good enough yet. If I had to attempt to verify every bullshit sounding argument that I came across, I'd never get any work done. The fact is there appears to be a serious water shortage while the 'authorities' have supposedly been taking care of it for decades. The argument that was made was that we should assume the farmers have "thought about it more than we have", with the implication that we should heed their opinion because they've been sioled away for decades, 'thinking about it'. Show me the dashboard that shows real-time estimates for total water reserves and all the charts about how long that will last us under all scenarios. I was able to find this: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.action http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.act... But that's just an image posted on top of the state's ubiquitous CMS showing how far below average the water levels have fallen under the stewardship of the current authorities. It's not terrible, but the problem is that it provides very little context for what those water levels mean. How long is that water going to last (it seems like we want to find a way to make this 'indefinite')? How should water usage be modified to make it last longer? What are the effects going to be on food production? These are the questions that we need to know the answers to. Furthermore,this information should be accessible to everyone through a URL so that most of us who don't have time to look back through ~45 years of data to figure out what is going on, can get the current, most relevant information to form rational opinions, instead of just trusting that the 'people in charge' are on top of it.
alexqgb 12y ago
Sorry wooster, but "time spent thinking" is utterly irrelevant. Why? Because the expression is meaningless. To have meaning it needs to indicate to what end. There's a world of difference between (for example) "thinking about how to assert as much control over a limited resource for the lowest cost possible" and "thinking about how to manage a limited resource as effectively as possible given the broad range of needs and interests in the state." Farmers have been thinking about themselves for decades. The policies we have as a result reflect precious little interest in the well-being of California as a whole.

by wooster 12y ago

jsprogrammer 12y ago

If you can't link me straight to what you're talking about, then it isn't good enough yet. If I had to attempt to verify every bullshit sounding argument that I came across, I'd never get any work done. The fact is there appears to be a serious water shortage while the 'authorities' have supposedly been taking care of it for decades. The argument that was made was that we should assume the farmers have "thought about it more than we have", with the implication that we should heed their opinion because they've been sioled away for decades, 'thinking about it'. Show me the dashboard that shows real-time estimates for total water reserves and all the charts about how long that will last us under all scenarios. I was able to find this: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.action http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.act... But that's just an image posted on top of the state's ubiquitous CMS showing how far below average the water levels have fallen under the stewardship of the current authorities. It's not terrible, but the problem is that it provides very little context for what those water levels mean. How long is that water going to last (it seems like we want to find a way to make this 'indefinite')? How should water usage be modified to make it last longer? What are the effects going to be on food production? These are the questions that we need to know the answers to. Furthermore,this information should be accessible to everyone through a URL so that most of us who don't have time to look back through ~45 years of data to figure out what is going on, can get the current, most relevant information to form rational opinions, instead of just trusting that the 'people in charge' are on top of it.

alexqgb 12y ago

Sorry wooster, but "time spent thinking" is utterly irrelevant. Why? Because the expression is meaningless. To have meaning it needs to indicate to what end. There's a world of difference between (for example) "thinking about how to assert as much control over a limited resource for the lowest cost possible" and "thinking about how to manage a limited resource as effectively as possible given the broad range of needs and interests in the state." Farmers have been thinking about themselves for decades. The policies we have as a result reflect precious little interest in the well-being of California as a whole.