The Water Police have arrived!


If you are talking about Kalifornia, it wasn't because of a free market but rather because of political stupidity that interfered with the free market. As usual the problem was the government interference.



Baloney! The lakes created are a boon to mankind (and animals). The control of flooding again is a boon. But you are correct that nuclear is the safest and best at present as a solution for energy. Southern Kalifornia desperately needs for more dams to be put up for saving what water as it get.


The lakes created are a boon, true, but take a look at one, or more, pictures of the erosion of the beaches because the sediment no longer flows to the oceans to replenish the sands. It's awful. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just looking at the bigger picture.
 

Sorry but I don't believe the problem of beach erosion has anything to do with Dams particularly dams on the Snake and the Colorado or any one of hundreds of other rivers. Your source is heavily leftist which is heavy on emotion not facts.
 
Last edited:
Whatever the source of the water shortage is, imposing usage limits and arresting people who use water "wastefully" is not the answer. Allowing the free market to prevail is.
 
Sorry but I don't believe the problem of beach erosion has anything to do with Dams particularly dams on the Snake and the Colorado or any one of hundreds of other rivers. Your source is heavily leftist which is heavy on emotion not facts.

What? Leftist? I just shake my head at off-the-wall comments like that. Nope, my post wasn't about politics in the least. Is that how you refute sources, by saying they are leftest? Their bend doesn't make them more or less right or wrong. All things to the right aren't right or wrong either. I wasn't even going there, sorry. Why did you? My sources (plural) were 1., Wikipedia and Coastal Erosion and 2., marin.k12.ca.us, or marin county k thru 12 school system. How are they leftist? Where is that comment of yours coming from? If you are just trying to get my ire, sorry, it won't work. Let's stick to the facts, shall we?

Rather, and my point was, we can take a look at some pretty simple geographical issues of the century. Researchers have been studying the effects of dams on rivers and how they impact beaches and their successive erosion for years. Yes, the damming of rivers has adverse effects on many coastlines.

From Wiki Tiki Tavi comes Beach Nourishment and the following:

QUOTE:
... Another type of erosion is a more serious problem for beach health. Some beaches do not have enough sand available to coastal processes to respond naturally to storms. Reasons can include:

* a seawall locking up sand dunes under urban areas or
* coastal structures like ports and harbors that prevent longshore drift
* river management structures like dams
* some coastlines are naturally eroding due to processes like continental drift
* climate change impacts sea level rise, increasing storms, or changes to the pattern of ocean currents

When there is not enough sand left available on a beach, then there is no recovery of the beach following storms. ...
END QUOTE

Is the NOAA, Coastal Services Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, leftist? I think not. They have a wonderful online Link Removedthat explains some variants of sediment transport and beach nourishment, barrier islands, effects of large storms; coastal ecology, coastal geology, human dimension, and engineering, and more.

As well, there are plenty of sources, government and private sector, on and offline re: the Gulf of Mexico and the Florida Everglades, and the California coastlines, and other areas and their subsequent erosion due to damming, dikes, aqueducts, cement rivers and more. This is one reason that hurricanes like Katrina are becoming so devastating - the erosion of the outlying reefs and dunes and other sand structures that have normally protected low-lying areas have slowly but surely disappeared, often because the sediments aren't reaching the coasts any longer. Check it out. Sure, politics are involved. I wasn't going there. I was only talking science and nature. Have you facts or sites that explain otherwise? You may call it anything you like. But, call it leftist? Nah.
 
As long as the people using the water are paying for it, then leave them alone. If they're stealing it or otherwise not paying for what they're using it, then go after them.
That sounds good in theory, but in reality it's freedom of water use vs. freedom of growth. You can't have both in infinite supply. There have already been modern wars fought over freshwater supplies, and they'll become more frequent in the future.

Florida is rapidly running out of fresh water suitable for drinking. Lawn watering across the state is the factor almost singularly responsible for Orlando trying to pull water out of the St. Johns River, which flows directly north through Jacksonville. Pulling lots of water out of the river would royally screw up a lot of things that depend on it. What was once a fringe issue for a few econuts has become a charged debate, with 90%+ people in Jacksonville being fairly solidly against it. Orlando, in the meantime, is really thirsty.

This isn't a problem created just by Orlando. We've all contributed to it over the years by pissing perfectly good water away on our grass as if the whole world is full of it. Meanwhile, our grass just sits there and looks stupid. Atlanta has a similar problem, and in a desert area like California, it can only be worse. Although it seems stupid, there's a lot of justification for cutting back on water use.

What's the alternative? Everyone just dehydrate? Water is now, and always has been, a survival issue.
 
Whatever the source of the water shortage is, imposing usage limits and arresting people who use water "wastefully" is not the answer. Allowing the free market to prevail is.

I agree, arrests are not the answer. Although, because water is essential to life, we cannot let it dissipate, or vanish, even in free markets. As there was when bison disappeared, there is no alternative to water. There are many methods of refining the salt water for our use as fresh water, but that has not yet become viable or cost effective. Still, we hope!
 
Nope, my post wasn't about politics in the least.

I was talking about your link. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

., marin.k12.ca.us, or marin county k thru 12 school system. How are they leftist?

Do you know anything about marin county? I don't know of many more leftist counties in Kalifornia.

As I said, it is difficult to talk about dams affecting beach erosion when so many rivers don't flow into the areas where the beach erosion is taking place. Tell me again how dams on the Snake River affect beach erosion. Tell me how putting a dam on the Ohio or the Payette or any number of the hundreds of rivers is affecting beach erosion.
 
That sounds good in theory, but in reality it's freedom of water use vs. freedom of growth. You can't have both in infinite supply. There have already been modern wars fought over freshwater supplies, and they'll become more frequent in the future.

Florida is rapidly running out of fresh water suitable for drinking. Lawn watering across the state is the factor almost singularly responsible for Orlando trying to pull water out of the St. Johns River, which flows directly north through Jacksonville. Pulling lots of water out of the river would royally screw up a lot of things that depend on it. What was once a fringe issue for a few econuts has become a charged debate, with 90%+ people in Jacksonville being fairly solidly against it. Orlando, in the meantime, is really thirsty.

This isn't a problem created just by Orlando. We've all contributed to it over the years by pissing perfectly good water away on our grass as if the whole world is full of it. Meanwhile, our grass just sits there and looks stupid. Atlanta has a similar problem, and in a desert area like California, it can only be worse. Although it seems stupid, there's a lot of justification for cutting back on water use.

What's the alternative? Everyone just dehydrate? Water is now, and always has been, a survival issue.

All the more reason to let the market dictate things. I don't know how much flexibility the utility companies have over prices in Florida and California, but if they were allowed to raise prices as water becomes scarcer and scarcer, the problem would fix itself.
 
And who actually owns the water?

I think that the main issue is that water can not be owned. Potable water in this country should belong to the people. I think that giving ownership of water supplies, which is the only way to inflate the price, would have a devastating effect on the people of this nation. Remember, the government (anywhere) will take every inch that the population will freely give, and then work on stealing more. That is why we have to push so hard to overcome attempted restrictions on our RTKBA.

It's a constitutional thang:dirol:

That is why there are some limits on land that is privately owned. If you live up the river from me and decide that your pier is a toilet, it affects me. Let them do it with water now, and soon you will be paying an access fee for air. :crazy_pilot:

I think that the big issue in this country is the fact that corporations have the same legal rights as individuals. This gives the members of corporations wide latitude to harm the public with little concern or liability. We need to excise those privileges and save them for the real, breathing people of this country. Corporations should have no "rights" under the constitution. Unfortunately, the international mega-corps have bought legislation that has, in essence, created a new life form. When you hear the phrase "corporate entity" it means a lot more than people realize.

Look at it this way: I disagree with seat belt laws. If you are stupid enough to drive without one, it is simply Darwin in action. However, I have absolutely no problem with mandating seat belts be installed in cars as part of basic safety equipment. Therefore, you have the right to not use the equipment if you so choose, but the car company must make that choice available to you.

I think that helmet laws are foolish. If someone is crazy enough to ride without this common sense piece of safety equipment, the worst thing that could happen is that they die in a wreck from which they might have walked away. However, requiring eye protection is for the greater public good (i.e. your are zooming down the road, an insect flies into your eye, you lose control of your bike, and you smear a toddler over half a block of pavement).

I guess the issue about which I am saddest is the loss of shame as a motivator in our society. If you live in a parched area, and yet you have a vibrant green lawn, your neighbors/community should socially disapprove, not show up for your next cookout.

Shunning - It works for the Amish. :sarcastic:
 
Last edited:
I failed to mention in response to a couple of earlier posts that I'm willing to bet that in the places where wars are being fought over water, none of them have a capitalist system. Any takers?
 
I failed to mention in response to a couple of earlier posts that I'm willing to bet that in the places where wars are being fought over water, none of them have a capitalist system. Any takers?
So far that seems to be the case. However, Jacksonville may yet be motivated to lay siege to Orlando if you don't get your Mickey mitts off our river. :laugh:
 
I was talking about your link. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Do you know anything about marin county? I don't know of many more leftist counties in Kalifornia. It is difficult to talk about dams affecting beach erosion when so many rivers don't flow into the areas where the beach erosion is taking place. Tell me again how dams on the Snake River affect beach erosion. Tell me how putting a dam on the Ohio or the Payette or any number of the hundreds of rivers is affecting beach erosion.

Well, which is it that you object to, reliable or leftist? Is the NOAA either? Both? Maybe all the information that I could find every where or anywhere, or just the information that you choose to believe or not believe, is all just propaganda, or invalid, from the loony left, maybe right wing wacky, even socialist, communist, pick one or none, or maybe just plain stOOpid, and therefore none of it would be good sources or maybe just never good enough for you? That renders this whole conversation moot and invalid. And what does it matter? If there is no water then it matters not.

It is difficult to talk about dams affecting beach erosion with someone who knows nothing about beach nourishment. Last time I checked, the Snake river still flows into the Columbia river that flows to the ocean and deposits sediment in its gulf, as does every other river that eventually makes its way to the ocean. As for the others, if they don't "hook up" with another river then they end either underground or in a lake where they deposit their sediment. Do you realize that many rivers flow underground? Do you understand why they dredge harbors? I don't believe the concept is difficult.

Again: "As well, there are plenty of sources, government and private sector, on and offline re: the Gulf of Mexico and the Florida Everglades, and the California coastlines, and other areas and their subsequent erosion due to damming, dikes, aqueducts, cement rivers and more. This is one reason that hurricanes like Katrina are becoming so devastating - the erosion of the outlying reefs and dunes and other sand structures that have normally protected low-lying areas have slowly but surely disappeared, often because the sediments aren't reaching the coasts any longer. Check it out. Sure, politics are involved. I wasn't going there. I was only talking science and nature. Have you facts or sites that explain otherwise?"

Take an elementary class in geogology, beach nourishment. Asked and answered.

Again I ask: Where are your cites? None? Done here. Moving on.
 
Last edited:
So far that seems to be the case. However, Jacksonville may yet be motivated to lay siege to Orlando if you don't get your Mickey mitts off our river. :laugh:

I rest my case. Capitalism will prevail any time a commodity becomes scarce, because it's the best way to allocate that commodity. In this case, it'll dictate that people need to go to where it is cheaper and more plentiful.
 
It is difficult to talk about dams affecting beach erosion with someone who knows nothing about beach nourishment. Last time I checked, the Snake river still flows into the Columbia river that flows to the ocean and deposits sediment in its gulf, as does every other river that eventually makes its way to the ocean. As for the others, if they don't "hook up" with another river then they end either underground or in a lake where they deposit their sediment. Do you realize that many rivers flow underground? Do you understand why they dredge harbors? I don't believe the concept is difficult.

I don't believe for a second that it makes a case for not damming rivers throughout the country.

This is one reason that hurricanes like Katrina are becoming so devastating - the erosion of the outlying reefs and dunes and other sand structures that have normally protected low-lying areas have slowly but surely disappeared, often because the sediments aren't reaching the coasts any longer

The main reason hurricanes like Katrina are so devastating is because of increased population in the areas that are routinely hit with hurricanes and the stupidity of those who have moved into those areas. The Levees failed even though it had been known for over 30 years that there was a danger and the locals continually misspent the monies that were made available to study and correct the problems. The locals refused to follow their own emergency FEMA plans. The local refused help that was offered. The State kept Red Cross and others out of the area initially. It wasn't the "environmental" damage that led to the high damage though yes, some of it like the levees had been known for decades and monies misspent while the developing problems were ignored. At some point terminal stupidity wins out, Katrina was one of those points.

Your sources don't address my comments. They say nothing for the vast majority of rivers and are making major claims for minor situations.
 
I rest my case. Capitalism will prevail any time a commodity becomes scarce, because it's the best way to allocate that commodity. In this case, it'll dictate that people need to go to where it is cheaper and more plentiful.
Going to where it's cheaper and more plentiful - the river - in this case will cause salt water intrusion and greater concentrations of pollutants in Jacksonville's part of the river, which in turn leads to red tide. That's a very bad solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist.
 
Tatters, you are wrong on this one.

I rest my case. Capitalism will prevail any time a commodity becomes scarce, because it's the best way to allocate that commodity. In this case, it'll dictate that people need to go to where it is cheaper and more plentiful.

Please do not take this personally, Tatt. I am currently unemployed and nearly broke, so I am not making fun of you, or mocking you in any way. You do realize that when you say that capitalism is the best way to allocate a resource like water, people with jobs like yours (Security Guard, if I recall) are not likely to be on the receiving end of the spigot. The poor, and the vanishing middle class, will most likely be SOL if push comes to shove. Me, more so, so don't be mad. Even worse, to move someplace else you've got to have resources (that word again) to do so.

NOT picking on you! :no: You are still one of my favorite posters!

The water wars aren't coming; they are already here. Remember a little conflict in 1967 between Jordan (democraticmonarchy) and Isreal ( representational republic democracy like the U.S., utilizing British style parliament). What was it over? Water. There are two democracies for you. I will look up a few more. Also, I don't understand your reference to water as a commodity. This is one good definition:

"A physical substance, such as food, grains, and metals, which is interchangeable with another product of the same type, and which investors buy or sell, usually through futures contracts. The price of the commodity is subject to supply and demand."

Fresh water is not interchangeable with another kind of fresh water. Clean water has no qualitative differences. Our very lives depend on this substance, first and foremost.

A good example might be this, with the following qualification: I really love my fellow brothers and sisters who happen to be Christian. Though I am Buddhist, I find Christ to be a boddisatva, and most Christians to be honorable, and more importantly moral, individuals. But this stupid head-in-the-sand attitude that I am hearing from some of the Christian members on this forum has GOT to stop. We already have 20% of the world's population without safe drinking water, and 50% with inadequate sanitation. The levels that we are using our very rapidly diminishing freshwater stocks should make you all sit up and take notice. It annoys me when I hear comments about God being on his throne and Jesus taking care of everything, and then see the people who make those comments turn around and talk about environmental hoaxes, and treating everything as if it were business as usual. This might help to clarify my point:

Link Removed

While I may not buy the arguments for (or against) global warming, the fact that there is escalating climate change is pretty obvious. More importantly, however, is the fact that man-made pollution is affecting us here and now. Look at the pollution in the pan Aral sea area of the former Soviet Union. Look at the decimation of the Earths great rain forests. Look at the crappy air that YOUR children are breathing, not only in America's cities, but the areas downwind from major industries. Wonder why kids are so sickly now, with their weird allergies and extremely elevated instances of asthma? If your kid can't eat peanuts or wheat, that is not a normal condition. Those children have literally been poisoned. Those types of allergies just did not exist when the Union and the Confederacy were having their butt kicking competition.

The Christian bible says that all gifts from God have already been given to us. That means that God is not going to send us a few shipments of Poland Springs anytime soon. He (she, it, whatever you believe) already gave us Poland Springs, and we were supposed to take care of it. The Christian bible also states that God helps those who help themselves. It is incumbent upon us to start looking at some ways to make things better, not put it off. Fifty years ago, it was going to be our grandkids' problem. Twenty years ago, it was going to be our kids' problem. Guess what? Time's up. It is here, and the sooner we deal with it, the better off we will be. No offense, but to do otherwise is basically a big "F*** You" to our children.

As for capitalism being the answer, you DO NOT privatize public resources. We are going to be in a world of trouble if we do so. I am a believer in capitalism as far as the free enterprise system goes, but if we start giving aquifer rights to private corporations, all of what we thought was public accessible lands and waters will be off limits to most of us. Dig a well on your own property, as many of our forum members have done, and you will have a "corporate entity" like Nestle Waters (Swiss company owning U.S. water rights RIGHT NOW) will sue you for stealing "their" water.

Link Removed

How many Enron's, Tycos, etc. do we have to experience to see that giving away one of our most precious PUBLIC treasures is a horrible idea. We might as well sell Yellowstone to a geothermal power generator.:confused:

The World Bank, of which we are a part, endorses this idea of privatizing water sources (World Bank? Danger, Will Robinson!). What they only mention in the semi-private, poorly attended planning sessions is that after privatization, they seek full marginal cost pricing of water. Tatted, if they were to do that today, people in this country would be paying between fifty cents and one dollar for every gallon of fresh water pumped into your home. Think about it: Every flush of every toilet in your house, $2.50. The typical washing machine uses 40 gallons per load. I love clean clothes, but $40 for a clean set of drawers is going to result in a lot more body odor in this country. Got a pool? Not anymore.

Of course, if you have rain barrels on your house, at least that might help, right? Sorry, ask some of our friends in UT, CO, and WA. Still think that privatization is a good idea? Maybe as long as it is done by an honest to goodness American company, right? Well, watch this:

Takoma Gardener: Making it illegal to collect rainwater

If you watched the video and did a little research, you would see that the real winner here was Bechtel, and the losers were the poor people who now spend 10 times as much for water. And we wonder why some hate us. It is not when we create our own wealth that annoys others, it is when we steal from the already poor, like the poor peasants in Bolivia. Personally, I am ashamed to be associated as a fellow countryman of those thieves.

Ultimately, if we do not voluntarily reduce our population, we are going to have some very hard times ahead. Of course, if things get bad enough, war, disease, and famine may very well cause a large enough die-off that things might normalize. However, throw some nukes into the mix, and we may have recipe that will exclude our species from continuing. Ultimately, I am not worried about the planet, nor am I worried about life on the planet. Earth, or God, or whatever has seen fit to start life, wipe the slate, and start life again with little problem. Species don't seem to really impact on the planet in any real, long term way. However, as a member of a species (some might argue that point :wink:), I would like to see mankind continue. God gave us the Garden of Eden, and look what we did with that. Perhaps we need to learn from our past mistakes.

I hope that the Christians don't feel beat up on. There are lots of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc. that refuse to see the evidence in front of them. The point is that we are on a tiny ball of rock, and we don't have anywhere else to go. We either need to really kick-start our space exploration and technologies (should do that anyway, IMHO) or take better care of our nest.
 
Anything, including water, can become a commodity if it's treated like one. That's fine, but it's also important to keep in mind that it's absolutely, non-negotiably essential for survival, and if a commoditized model doesn't work well in terms of provisioning water to people who need it to survive, then it may not be the best system.

Capitalism is a fine way to handle petroleum, food, clothing and shelter. Those things are needed for survival, but they are negotiable necessities. People can do without them for long periods of time, and there are many variations that can allow for less-than-ideal but workable solutions.

Water requires a tremendous amount of energy to produce via condensation or desal from seawater. Catching rain is cheap, but requires rain. All of these options, including the purification of water, require extra care to be taken to prevent contamination from bacteria, mold, mildew, etc.

Lawn watering and similar types of things are ok if there's more than enough water to go around, but pulling water out of a river to allow grass watering seems like stealing food from children to give to bums. Does anyone really care what color your grass is anyway?
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,543
Messages
611,259
Members
74,964
Latest member
BFerguson
Back
Top