The Water Police have arrived!

[gdcleanfun]

Originally Posted by maybejim

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.

[maybejim]

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.

[tattedupboy]

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.

[gdcleanfun]

Originally Posted by maybejim

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 site that 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.

[toreskha]

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

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.

[gdcleanfun]

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

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!

[maybejim]

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.

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by toreskha

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.

[Boomboy007]

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

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.

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.

[tattedupboy]

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?