If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SacBee)   One Californian ponders why snow in the east can't be hauled to CA to ease the drought. Another Californian wonders why this guy doesn't live in Florida   (sacbee.com) divider line 115
    More: Stupid, East Coast, droughts, March On, drought tolerance, snow  
•       •       •

5693 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2014 at 5:36 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-03 04:34:21 PM
well setting aside the tremendous costs required to do it, it could be done but it is far from practical and even then all the snow on the ground in the US would not long fill whats needed out there.

Not to mention the snow melt water is needed in many places.
 
2014-03-03 04:54:40 PM
Because we haul it to poland and sell it to them for clean fill.
 
2014-03-03 05:02:42 PM
What about hooking up a giant outboard motor onto an iceberg, and moving it to California?
std3.ru
 
2014-03-03 05:25:33 PM
If it *really* gets bad, the Navy has ships that can desalinate a lot of water- I imagine that would be very expensive.
 
2014-03-03 05:27:52 PM
If only California were located near some large body of water.

Of course, that would be of no use unless you had abundant sunshine for desalinization.
 
2014-03-03 05:40:06 PM
I don't believe any questions like these are "bad" questions. We Americans have accomplished some pretty amazing feats of engineering , so it's not surprising that some people to assume that difficult things are easier than they think.

Hell, almost every American assumes what they don't understand is easy.
 
2014-03-03 05:40:17 PM
Lest anyone forgets, there is a compact amongst the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Waterways, USA and Canada, that no one can take our water. I believe MI is prepared to use military force if needed.
 
2014-03-03 05:42:01 PM

Mark Ratner: What about hooking up a giant outboard motor onto an iceberg, and moving it to California?
[std3.ru image 400x227]


I have a better idea. Let your yard die.  The farms need the water more than your grass does
 
2014-03-03 05:42:17 PM
OK Eddie, you win.
 
2014-03-03 05:42:22 PM
What if they just dehydrated the water down, greatly reducing the weight for shipping?
 
2014-03-03 05:42:25 PM
California can have our water when they pry it from our cold, cold, COLD dead hands.

The Great Lakes Compact is a wonderful thing.

You live in a place with no water? FARK OFF.

/Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
 
2014-03-03 05:42:26 PM

ytterbium: Lest anyone forgets, there is a compact amongst the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Waterways, USA and Canada, that no one can take our water. I believe MI is prepared to use military force if needed.


Michigan Air Force vs California Air Force....would bring new meaning to the "flyover states" in between.
 
2014-03-03 05:43:01 PM
Well.. actually the water from the east will eventually make it's way to California.. given time.
 
2014-03-03 05:43:38 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: If only California were located near some large body of water.

Of course, that would be of no use unless you had abundant sunshine for desalinization.


Or nuclear power.
 
2014-03-03 05:43:41 PM
So I guess California needs the fly over states more than they need California?
 
2014-03-03 05:44:24 PM

ytterbium: Lest anyone forgets, there is a compact amongst the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Waterways, USA and Canada, that no one can take our water. I believe MI is prepared to use military force if needed.


The treaty said nothing about snow
Read the fine print next time
 
2014-03-03 05:44:33 PM
Trebuchet it.
 
2014-03-03 05:44:48 PM
just paint a big red target over Sacramento & taunt passing comets to "hit the bulls eye".

drought solved.

you're welcome.
 
2014-03-03 05:45:00 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: If only California were located near some large body of water.

Of course, that would be of no use unless you had abundant sunshine for desalinization.


Or some nice sheets of graphene.
Abundant sunshine or no, current desalination techniques are too energy-inefficient to be practical on such a large scale for anything but a last resort.  California is responsible for too much of the country's produce to fulfill our water needs using flash or RO desalination.  New nano-filters would change that, though.
 
2014-03-03 05:45:21 PM

Mark Ratner: What about hooking up a giant outboard motor onto an iceberg, and moving it to California?


That is actually probably much more cost-effective than trucks.

I think a better approach would be to send spaceships out to get large ice crystal from, say, Saturn's rings. I bet it would even be enough water to supply a settlement on another planet, say, Mars.
 
2014-03-03 05:45:22 PM
Just need a network of heaters and pipes.

We do it for oil. No reason other than cost that we can't do it for water. It's just not worth it to do it. If/when it's worth it, they'll do it.
 
2014-03-03 05:45:30 PM
Aside from the sheer amount you'd need to make a difference, I also occasionally hear people suggesting a pipeline to ship water to the West.  This is a practical impossibility too because of the amount of energy needed to get the water over the Rocky Mountains.  It would probably be more efficient just to build the desalinization plants.

This is also no doubt one of the many reasons Canada is pushing the Keystone oil pipeline instead of building one from Alberta to Vancouver.
 
2014-03-03 05:45:55 PM
l.yimg.com
 
2014-03-03 05:45:58 PM
Mostly, because it'd be insanely impractical. And, what happens when both places are having a drought? If you want water; lobby for desalination.
 
2014-03-03 05:47:07 PM
Pipeline from Canada to California ala Keystone XL, all we need is to annex Canada.
 
2014-03-03 05:47:23 PM

ShadowKamui: ytterbium: Lest anyone forgets, there is a compact amongst the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Waterways, USA and Canada, that no one can take our water. I believe MI is prepared to use military force if needed.

The treaty said nothing about snow
Read the fine print next time


Snow melts, feeds the rivers and lakes. I know in some areas of the country you aren't allowed to use rain barrels because the rain belongs to the general watershed, not your land in particular.

/DNRTFA
 
2014-03-03 05:47:28 PM
He might have some regrets about using his full name on a public site.
 
2014-03-03 05:50:36 PM

Cerebral Ballsy: Just need a network of heaters and pipes.

We do it for oil. No reason other than cost that we can't do it for water. It's just not worth it to do it. If/when it's worth it, they'll do it.


wxboy: Aside from the sheer amount you'd need to make a difference, I also occasionally hear people suggesting a pipeline to ship water to the West.  This is a practical impossibility too because of the amount of energy needed to get the water over the Rocky Mountains.  It would probably be more efficient just to build the desalinization plants.


:08 from simulpost.
 
2014-03-03 05:51:26 PM

Mark Ratner: What about hooking up a giant outboard motor onto an iceberg, and moving it to California?
[std3.ru image 400x227]


Not so far fetched.
 
2014-03-03 05:53:01 PM

axeeugene: California can have our water when they pry it from our cold, cold, COLD dead hands.

The Great Lakes Compact is a wonderful thing.

You live in a place with no water? FARK OFF.


Okay, we'll see how you like the quintupled produce prices.


Nemo's Brother: So I guess California needs the fly over states more than they need California?


gifrific.com

Hardly.  It's fairly symbiotic.  You give us water, we grow your food.  California grows 80% of the fruits and veggies for the country in general, and close to 100% of a lot of common specialty crops.  Oh, except feed corn and soybeans, of course.  You got that covered.
 
2014-03-03 05:53:10 PM

JoieD'Zen: He might have some regrets about using his full name on a public site.


I doubt anyone dumb enough to ask that will realize that it was regrettable
 
2014-03-03 05:54:26 PM
I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply? Talk about stupid. If Cali doesn't get water from the surrounding sates we all take it in the a$$ every time we buy food.
 
2014-03-03 05:54:53 PM

Gawdzila: axeeugene: California can have our water when they pry it from our cold, cold, COLD dead hands.

The Great Lakes Compact is a wonderful thing.

You live in a place with no water? FARK OFF.

Okay, we'll see how you like the quintupled produce prices.


As if anyone in the Midwest eats vegetables...
 
2014-03-03 05:55:03 PM

vernonFL: If it *really* gets bad, the Navy has ships that can desalinate a lot of water- I imagine that would be very expensive.


Desal is actually fine for personal use near the coast though a tad expensive.  Works great in a place like Aruba.  The problem is maintaining heavy industry and agriculture and getting it all uphill to inland areas.  That would be crazy expensive.  I guess you could move all the heavy industry to the coasts, but you aren't moving the good land.
 
2014-03-03 05:55:28 PM
No, you can't have our water.  Feel free to move here and pay taxes though.
 
2014-03-03 05:56:20 PM

wxboy: Aside from the sheer amount you'd need to make a difference, I also occasionally hear people suggesting a pipeline to ship water to the West.  This is a practical impossibility too because of the amount of energy needed to get the water over the Rocky Mountains.  It would probably be more efficient just to build the desalinization plants.



There is a pipeline through the Rocky Mountains from the eastern side of Colorado all the way west. My dad was involved in surveying it around 1957.
 
2014-03-03 05:56:54 PM

Gawdzila: axeeugene: California can have our water when they pry it from our cold, cold, COLD dead hands.

The Great Lakes Compact is a wonderful thing.

You live in a place with no water? FARK OFF.

Okay, we'll see how you like the quintupled produce prices.


Nemo's Brother: So I guess California needs the fly over states more than they need California?

[gifrific.com image 245x285]

Hardly.  It's fairly symbiotic.  You give us water, we grow your food.  California grows 80% of the fruits and veggies for the country in general, and close to 100% of a lot of common specialty crops.  Oh, except feed corn and soybeans, of course.  You got that covered.


I'm looking forward to seeing what happens when the producers in California no longer have enough for the looters to seize and give to the moochers.  When you're out of water there won't be anything to take.  Then what?  Meltdown, riots, etc.  You do need us more than we need you.
 
2014-03-03 05:57:29 PM
Stupid question really. That snow is already scheduled to be hauled out to sea to stop global warming.
 
2014-03-03 05:58:44 PM
If we can build a space elevator surely we can build a snow conveyor across the country. We just to pull up our boot straps a bit.
 
2014-03-03 06:00:32 PM
be all californy and innovate!

You can:

Create Fusion (sorry about the disaster of 2092)
Alter The Jet Stream (we're watching you in the midwest, and we have missile silos)
Buy Water from Aquifina and Let the Poors get "brownouts" (hmm... is #3 cool? are we cool?)

oh...

you could not shove millions of people in a desert (that's just CRAZY talk!)
 
2014-03-03 06:00:41 PM
the #1 cost of desalinization is lifting the water above where it is being sent.   a plant that can desalinize 1,000,000 gallons per day (and there are 14 of them in California) needs to lift 1 million gallons each day.

the 2nd major cost is creating the pressure it takes to force the water through the filters that remove the salt.

the rest of the stuff is easy to do, removing the other contaminates both organinc and inorganic.

of course if California could put a HUGE greenhouse like structure over the Pacific Ocean, then they could cause water to "evaporate" and it would then form "clouds"    which produce "rain and snow".
 
2014-03-03 06:00:56 PM

30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply? Talk about stupid. If Cali doesn't get water from the surrounding sates we all take it in the a$$ every time we buy food.


Exactly. We should just grow all our fruits, veggies etc in Michigan, where there's an abundance of water.
 
2014-03-03 06:01:08 PM

wxboy: Aside from the sheer amount you'd need to make a difference, I also occasionally hear people suggesting a pipeline to ship water to the West.  This is a practical impossibility too because of the amount of energy needed to get the water over the Rocky Mountains.  It would probably be more efficient just to build the desalinization plants.

This is also no doubt one of the many reasons Canada is pushing the Keystone oil pipeline instead of building one from Alberta to Vancouver.


For starters we already have oil pipelines from Alberta to Vancouver. The next big project to BC is the Northern Gateway Pipeline that takes oil from near Edmonton to Kitimat.
 
2014-03-03 06:01:54 PM
The plan would be fine as long as you didn't mind paying as much for water as you do printer ink.

/move to where the water is?
 
2014-03-03 06:02:22 PM
The Nino is what you guys need.
 
2014-03-03 06:02:26 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Mark Ratner: What about hooking up a giant outboard motor onto an iceberg, and moving it to California?
[std3.ru image 400x227]

I have a better idea. Let your yard die.  The farms need the water more than your grass does


Yes, water yards in a desert is retarded. No argument there. But this is the water use breakdown for CA.

www.environment.ucla.edu
 
2014-03-03 06:02:46 PM
build a great big straw then Caliprunia can suck it
 
2014-03-03 06:04:21 PM

30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply?


Largely because California's high quality arable land, year-round growing climate, and variety of microclimates enable it to either get much higher yields for most crops, or to grow lots of things that other states really simply cannot grow effectively.  It's a reasonable arrangement to maximize the production from our available resources, assuming you aren't interested in engaging in some kind of ineffectual state-d*ck-waving contest like Smeggy Smurf up there.
 
2014-03-03 06:06:22 PM
Wouldn't it be closer to get it from Alaska?
 
2014-03-03 06:08:07 PM

Smeggy Smurf: You do need us more than we need you.


LOL.  Your ineffectual derp sustains me.
California needs IDAHO, LOL XD  Sure buddy. You go on potato'ing over there.
 
2014-03-03 06:08:30 PM

Gawdzila: 30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply?

Largely because California's high quality arable land, year-round growing climate, and variety of microclimates enable it to either get much higher yields for most crops, or to grow lots of things that other states really simply cannot grow effectively.  It's a reasonable arrangement to maximize the production from our available resources, assuming you aren't interested in engaging in some kind of ineffectual state-d*ck-waving contest like Smeggy Smurf up there.


You realize most of South America falls in high quality ariable land, microclimates, and has plenty of fresh water going fo it?  And many companies are setting up huge vegetable grow ops there?
 
2014-03-03 06:11:30 PM

SurelyShirley: 30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply? Talk about stupid. If Cali doesn't get water from the surrounding sates we all take it in the a$$ every time we buy food.

Exactly. We should just grow all our fruits, veggies etc in Michigan, where there's an abundance of water.


I can see Lake Michigan from mah house, and within 15 miles of here we have:
Sweet corn, soybean and wheat fields, three blueberry farms, two strawberry farms, several apple orchards, a few poultry farms, several beef farms, a hog farm, several wineries, distillers and breweries; three large-scale pumpkin/veggie farms, two hydroponic tomato/lettuce/herb facilities, plus many CSAs and community gardens.

We'd survive without CA produce, though I would miss pistachios and avocados.
 
2014-03-03 06:12:26 PM
Ooh - how about building an aqueduct to replenish the Platte / high plains aquifer?
 
2014-03-03 06:13:17 PM

dundapig: build a great big straw then Caliprunia can suck it


"My straw reaches across the room and starts to drink your milkshake.  I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!"
 
2014-03-03 06:13:56 PM

Russ1642: wxboy: Aside from the sheer amount you'd need to make a difference, I also occasionally hear people suggesting a pipeline to ship water to the West.  This is a practical impossibility too because of the amount of energy needed to get the water over the Rocky Mountains.  It would probably be more efficient just to build the desalinization plants.

This is also no doubt one of the many reasons Canada is pushing the Keystone oil pipeline instead of building one from Alberta to Vancouver.

For starters we already have oil pipelines from Alberta to Vancouver. The next big project to BC is the Northern Gateway Pipeline that takes oil from near Edmonton to Kitimat.


Okay, so I was wrong.  But still, the economics of moving water through a 2,000-mile pipeline don't really seem to make much sense unless you're willing to pay oil-level prices for it, at which point the economic difference between having the water and not having it probably isn't very large.
 
2014-03-03 06:14:32 PM

ytterbium: SurelyShirley: 30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply? Talk about stupid. If Cali doesn't get water from the surrounding sates we all take it in the a$$ every time we buy food.

Exactly. We should just grow all our fruits, veggies etc in Michigan, where there's an abundance of water.

I can see Lake Michigan from mah house, and within 15 miles of here we have:
Sweet corn, soybean and wheat fields, three blueberry farms, two strawberry farms, several apple orchards, a few poultry farms, several beef farms, a hog farm, several wineries, distillers and breweries; three large-scale pumpkin/veggie farms, two hydroponic tomato/lettuce/herb facilities, plus many CSAs and community gardens.

We'd survive without CA produce, though I would miss pistachios and avocados.


Your avocados would come from the Dominican Republic or South America.
 
2014-03-03 06:15:35 PM

theflatline: Gawdzila: 30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply?

Largely because California's high quality arable land, year-round growing climate, and variety of microclimates enable it to either get much higher yields for most crops, or to grow lots of things that other states really simply cannot grow effectively.  It's a reasonable arrangement to maximize the production from our available resources, assuming you aren't interested in engaging in some kind of ineffectual state-d*ck-waving contest like Smeggy Smurf up there.

You realize most of South America falls in high quality ariable land, microclimates, and has plenty of fresh water going fo it?  And many companies are setting up huge vegetable grow ops there?


Yeah, of course, in fact we already get certain things from them that are strictly summer crops.  But for us here in the U.S., the transportation costs for South American produce would be higher, fruits and veggies would have to be picked further away from ripeness to be viable for store shelves, and our food supplies would be dependent on a foreign country with, in some cases, questionable labor practices.  I'm not sure why that would be preferable to growing our own food here in California.  It's good for the economy of the country as a whole, in fact: California supplies a majority of almonds and artichokes to the world, not just the U.S..  Isn't decreasing our trade deficit a good thing?
 
2014-03-03 06:21:02 PM

wxboy: As if anyone in the Midwest eats vegetables...


Hey come on now, that's unfair...you need mirepoix to make a decent gravy, after all.
 
2014-03-03 06:21:50 PM

ytterbium: ytterbium: I can see Lake Michigan from mah house, and within 15 miles of here we have:
Sweet corn, soybean and wheat fields, three blueberry farms, two strawberry farms, several apple orchards, a few poultry farms, several beef farms, a hog farm, several wineries, distillers and breweries; three large-scale pumpkin/veggie farms, two hydroponic tomato/lettuce/herb facilities, plus many CSAs and community gardens.

We'd survive without CA produce, though I would miss pistachios and avocados.


So California supplies 80% of the nation's produce except for the the fertile crescent surrounding Lake Michigan? I think it's more likely that you vastly overestimate how much you actually grow locally and underestimate how much you consume.
 
2014-03-03 06:24:53 PM

theflatline: Your avocados would come from the Dominican Republic or South America.


And they are a cruel joke played on anyone who's lived in an avocado producing region. The flavorless stones sold as avocados in the Midwest are only fit for consumption by Midwesterners.
 
2014-03-03 06:26:40 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: theflatline: Your avocados would come from the Dominican Republic or South America.

And they are a cruel joke played on anyone who's lived in an avocado producing region. The flavorless stones sold as avocados in the Midwest are only fit for consumption by Midwesterners.


I thought there was a reason I never understood why so many people like them.
/Minnesotan.
 
2014-03-03 06:28:25 PM

Gawdzila: theflatline: Gawdzila: 30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply?

Largely because California's high quality arable land, year-round growing climate, and variety of microclimates enable it to either get much higher yields for most crops, or to grow lots of things that other states really simply cannot grow effectively.  It's a reasonable arrangement to maximize the production from our available resources, assuming you aren't interested in engaging in some kind of ineffectual state-d*ck-waving contest like Smeggy Smurf up there.

You realize most of South America falls in high quality ariable land, microclimates, and has plenty of fresh water going fo it?  And many companies are setting up huge vegetable grow ops there?

Yeah, of course, in fact we already get certain things from them that are strictly summer crops.  But for us here in the U.S., the transportation costs for South American produce would be higher, fruits and veggies would have to be picked further away from ripeness to be viable for store shelves, and our food supplies would be dependent on a foreign country with, in some cases, questionable labor practices.  I'm not sure why that would be preferable to growing our own food here in California.  It's good for the economy of the country as a whole, in fact: California supplies a majority of almonds and artichokes to the world, not just the U.S..  Isn't decreasing our trade deficit a good thing?


Hey now.

Stop getting in the way of a hatefilled wankfest about California suffering.  It's the most pleasure they're going to get tonight outside of the 30 minutes they'll spend looking at digital boobies.
 
2014-03-03 06:29:48 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: theflatline: Your avocados would come from the Dominican Republic or South America.

And they are a cruel joke played on anyone who's lived in an avocado producing region. The flavorless stones sold as avocados in the Midwest are only fit for consumption by Midwesterners.


I have lived in Colombia and I can tell you there are far more varieties there and with much better flavor than anything grown in California.
 
2014-03-03 06:40:45 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: ytterbium: ytterbium: I can see Lake Michigan from mah house, and within 15 miles of here we have:
Sweet corn, soybean and wheat fields, three blueberry farms, two strawberry farms, several apple orchards, a few poultry farms, several beef farms, a hog farm, several wineries, distillers and breweries; three large-scale pumpkin/veggie farms, two hydroponic tomato/lettuce/herb facilities, plus many CSAs and community gardens.

We'd survive without CA produce, though I would miss pistachios and avocados.

So California supplies 80% of the nation's produce except for the the fertile crescent surrounding Lake Michigan? I think it's more likely that you vastly overestimate how much you actually grow locally and underestimate how much you consume.


Understandable, I was originally kind of poking fun at how protective the region is of our fresh water. We all know any method of transporting water from here to there makes no sense.

I do assert that we could survive on local produce if needed, provided we can or freeze.
 
2014-03-03 06:43:01 PM
It's a question which when pondered for long really makes you appreciate how much energy goes into the hydrologic cycle.
 
2014-03-03 06:54:16 PM
Doesn't matter; indications are that a big-ass El Nino is going to show up and take care of this problem.  We could still get a couple storms this season and could get slammed with water next season.
 
2014-03-03 06:56:14 PM

theflatline: I have lived in Colombia and I can tell you there are far more varieties there and with much better flavor than anything grown in California.


Not having lived in Columbia I won't argue the point. I grew up with an avocado tree in my back yard and used to sit up in it eating avocados with a knife, salt, and a spoon so any flavor difference would have to be based on the variety rather than freshness. I'm surprised California growers haven't imported some of the other varieties.
 
2014-03-03 06:57:31 PM
See, California is basically SF and LA, surrounded by Alabama.  I'm betting the snow hauling guy is from the Alabama part of California.

ytterbium: SurelyShirley: 30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply? Talk about stupid. If Cali doesn't get water from the surrounding sates we all take it in the a$$ every time we buy food.

Exactly. We should just grow all our fruits, veggies etc in Michigan, where there's an abundance of water.

I can see Lake Michigan from mah house, and within 15 miles of here we have:
Sweet corn, soybean and wheat fields, three blueberry farms, two strawberry farms, several apple orchards, a few poultry farms, several beef farms, a hog farm, several wineries, distillers and breweries; three large-scale pumpkin/veggie farms, two hydroponic tomato/lettuce/herb facilities, plus many CSAs and community gardens.

We'd survive without CA produce, though I would miss pistachios and avocados.


Just FYI, California is the largest agriculture producer in the US, followed by Texas, which produces about half of what California does.
 
2014-03-03 07:06:30 PM
It's been raining in Sacramento every day for almost a week now.
 
2014-03-03 07:08:45 PM

make me some tea: It's been raining in Sacramento every day for almost a week now.


And we're still below average.
 
2014-03-03 07:11:15 PM

StopLurkListen: make me some tea: It's been raining in Sacramento every day for almost a week now.

And we're still below average.


Yup. Long way to go, but the forecast shows more precipitation, so that's good.
 
2014-03-03 07:11:30 PM

The Southern Dandy: See, California is basically SF and LA, surrounded by Alabama.  I'm betting the snow hauling guy is from the Alabama part of California.ytterbium: SurelyShirley: 30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply? Talk about stupid. If Cali doesn't get water from the surrounding sates we all take it in the a$$ every time we buy food.

Exactly. We should just grow all our fruits, veggies etc in Michigan, where there's an abundance of water.

I can see Lake Michigan from mah house, and within 15 miles of here we have:
Sweet corn, soybean and wheat fields, three blueberry farms, two strawberry farms, several apple orchards, a few poultry farms, several beef farms, a hog farm, several wineries, distillers and breweries; three large-scale pumpkin/veggie farms, two hydroponic tomato/lettuce/herb facilities, plus many CSAs and community gardens.

We'd survive without CA produce, though I would miss pistachios and avocados.

Just FYI, California is the largest agriculture producer in the US, followed by Texas, which produces about half of what California does.


Hey, we are building a a desalination plant for San Antonio. There's lots of brackish water under here apparently. But there have been water restrictions here ever since they found those blind salamanders in the aquifer way back, no crisis yet.
 
2014-03-03 07:12:13 PM

Gawdzila: theflatline: Gawdzila: 30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply?

Largely because California's high quality arable land, year-round growing climate, and variety of microclimates enable it to either get much higher yields for most crops, or to grow lots of things that other states really simply cannot grow effectively.  It's a reasonable arrangement to maximize the production from our available resources, assuming you aren't interested in engaging in some kind of ineffectual state-d*ck-waving contest like Smeggy Smurf up there.

You realize most of South America falls in high quality ariable land, microclimates, and has plenty of fresh water going fo it?  And many companies are setting up huge vegetable grow ops there?

Yeah, of course, in fact we already get certain things from them that are strictly summer crops.  But for us here in the U.S., the transportation costs for South American produce would be higher, fruits and veggies would have to be picked further away from ripeness to be viable for store shelves, and our food supplies would be dependent on a foreign country with, in some cases, questionable labor practices.  I'm not sure why that would be preferable to growing our own food here in California.  It's good for the economy of the country as a whole, in fact: California supplies a majority of almonds and artichokes to the world, not just the U.S..  Isn't decreasing our trade deficit a good thing?


That's a very California-centric view.  Where I live, most of our fruits and vegetables come locally (in the summer) or from South America (winter).  The grocery stores are very good about labeling the origins of the food, and I hardly ever see California listed, even for stereotypically Californian crops like avocados (Mexico) and pistachios (Middle East).

Even grapes are cheaper, and fresher, to fly in from Central America than to truck in from California.

Sorry, Cali.  The rest of the country really doesn't need you.  Free trade agreements have made you obsolete.
 
2014-03-03 07:20:50 PM

reaperducer: Sorry, Cali. The rest of the country really doesn't need you your crops. Free trade agreements have made you obsolete.


FTFY - kind of. You still need our food, sorry.
 
2014-03-03 07:22:28 PM

The Southern Dandy: See, California is basically SF and LA, surrounded by Alabama.  I'm betting the snow hauling guy is from the Alabama part of California


Actually, and this is not a happy thought, the snow hauling guy is from the 2nd most educated city in the country (I won't say why I know...). But you get inquisitive idiots everywhere.

Though I do remember someone asking the same sort of question when flooding was the issue of the day here in California (we always have one or the other) - why can't we just take a bunch of tanker trucks, fill them up above x city that is going to flood, and have them dump below the city? Well, because it would take 20,000 trucks per hour for that one location, and there is no way in hell that will work. Or a pipeline the size of the flooded river channel to re-route it. I think people just don't really get the scale of water consumption, river flows, snow pack, etc.
 
2014-03-03 07:26:48 PM
Cue the futurama ice cube scene..

// I SAID ONCE AND FOR ALL!
 
2014-03-03 07:27:18 PM
Good thing liberal states are so smart.
 
2014-03-03 07:34:37 PM
I think it's time to get realistic in general.  After billions and billions of years of animals and plants drinking all the water, it's eventually going to run out.  There are so many people on Earth now, that the water is disappearing as fast as the world's temperatures are rising.  So, it doesn't exactly matter where you get your supply from, it's only a matter of time before that runs out, too.  What we really need is some way to start getting water from the icy planets.
 
2014-03-03 07:36:36 PM
 
2014-03-03 07:45:50 PM

StopLurkListen: I don't believe any questions like these are "bad" questions. We Americans have accomplished some pretty amazing feats of engineering , so it's not surprising that some people to assume that difficult things are easier than they think.

Hell, almost every American assumes what they don't understand is easy.


that is almost as bad as  Tim Bruening's question.
 
2014-03-03 07:50:30 PM

MrHappyRotter: I think it's time to get realistic in general.  After billions and billions of years of animals and plants drinking all the water, it's eventually going to run out.  There are so many people on Earth now, that the water is disappearing as fast as the world's temperatures are rising.  So, it doesn't exactly matter where you get your supply from, it's only a matter of time before that runs out, too.  What we really need is some way to start getting water from the icy planets.


www.skepticmoney.com

//not sure if serious
 
2014-03-03 07:51:48 PM

30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply? Talk about stupid. If Cali doesn't get water from the surrounding sates we all take it in the a$$ every time we buy food.


Let me guess, you live in a city.
You don't have a clue due you?
I
You're as bad as Tim Bruening,

Let???
 
2014-03-03 07:57:23 PM

lake_huron: Mark Ratner: What about hooking up a giant outboard motor onto an iceberg, and moving it to California?

That is actually probably much more cost-effective than trucks.

I think a better approach would be to send spaceships out to get large ice crystal from, say, Saturn's rings. I bet it would even be enough water to supply a settlement on another planet, say, Mars.


Because that's the Martian Way.

/i see what you did there
 
2014-03-03 07:58:12 PM

demonbug: The Southern Dandy: See, California is basically SF and LA, surrounded by Alabama.  I'm betting the snow hauling guy is from the Alabama part of California

Actually, and this is not a happy thought, the snow hauling guy is from the 2nd most educated city in the country (I won't say why I know...). But you get inquisitive idiots everywhere.

Though I do remember someone asking the same sort of question when flooding was the issue of the day here in California (we always have one or the other) - why can't we just take a bunch of tanker trucks, fill them up above x city that is going to flood, and have them dump below the city? Well, because it would take 20,000 trucks per hour for that one location, and there is no way in hell that will work. Or a pipeline the size of the flooded river channel to re-route it. I think people just don't really get the scale of water consumption, river flows, snow pack, etc.


I don't think that is really the way to look at it. Some people really do not understand how certain things work and often those who do, denigrate them for the lack of knowledge. This is counterproductive as many, if not most of our greatest inventions were the product or by-product of stupid ideas. I myself have wondered if there was some way to pipe or channel the flood waters from the Fargo/Moorehead area to the southwest. So far I can not find an option that would work as far as I know. At the very least find a way to move it to a watershed that can drain that region and get those people's lives back to normal. Altitude seems to be the biggest obstacle as far as I can tell. Pumps cost money to operate and gravity fed would be best. Is there a solution? I don't know. I sure would love to see someone find that solution if it exists, or can exist.
 
2014-03-03 07:58:44 PM

theflatline: Gawdzila: 30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply?

Largely because California's high quality arable land, year-round growing climate, and variety of microclimates enable it to either get much higher yields for most crops, or to grow lots of things that other states really simply cannot grow effectively.  It's a reasonable arrangement to maximize the production from our available resources, assuming you aren't interested in engaging in some kind of ineffectual state-d*ck-waving contest like Smeggy Smurf up there.

You realize most of South America falls in high quality ariable land, microclimates, and has plenty of fresh water going fo it?  And many companies are setting up huge vegetable grow ops there?


what is the price of jet fuel these days?
Just how much are you willing/able to pay for a tomato?
 
2014-03-03 08:03:02 PM
There is a very large disconnect with reality in this thread.

welcome to fark.jpg  is in full play.
 
2014-03-03 08:05:57 PM
Sure, if you want 8 months worth of motor oil, cigarette butts, and hobo pee that was scraped off the road with a plow melted down into your drinking water, you can come help yourself.
 
2014-03-03 08:10:00 PM

StopLurkListen: Hell, almost every American assumes what they don't understand is easy.


Except evolution. That's a case of "I kin't figger it out, therefore Jeebus."
 
2014-03-03 08:14:23 PM

axeeugene: You live in a place with no water? FARK OFF.


Careful with that, axeeugene. Water only exists in three states.
 
2014-03-03 08:19:15 PM

aerojockey: Doesn't matter; indications are that a big-ass El Nino is going to show up and take care of this problem.  We could still get a couple storms this season and could get slammed with water next season.


That is what the short term models say and it certainly posable.

In the historic/ geologic term, not so much. The latest data indicates that Cali is heading into a +/- 80yr. drought cycle.
I hope I'm wrong.
 
2014-03-03 08:20:21 PM
ytterbium: We'd survive without CA produce, though I would miss pistachios and avocados.

I already miss pistachios since there is no way in hell that I'm paying $10/LB for them (unshelled).
 
2014-03-03 08:40:43 PM
Tim C. Bruening of Davis, CA spends his time stuffing ads
in the local Davis Enterprise newspaper -- when he's not
skydiving or thinking outside the box.  Shipping snow from
the East was a really dumb idea, Timmy.  Everyone knows
that's it far easier to just steal it from southern Oregon
and dump it into Lake Shasta.  Much shorter distance
and it's all downhill.... just look on the map.  See, Oregon
up there and Davis down here.  Let gravity do most of
the work.  Comments to:  tsbrue­ni[nospam-﹫-backwards]sivad*ca*us
 
2014-03-03 08:44:21 PM
Massive dam removal projects can't help their water storing capacity either:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23508105/californias-biggest-dam-remov al -project-history-begins-carmel

/ B... but muh delta smelt!
 
2014-03-03 08:44:57 PM

blender61: theflatline: Gawdzila: 30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply?

Largely because California's high quality arable land, year-round growing climate, and variety of microclimates enable it to either get much higher yields for most crops, or to grow lots of things that other states really simply cannot grow effectively.  It's a reasonable arrangement to maximize the production from our available resources, assuming you aren't interested in engaging in some kind of ineffectual state-d*ck-waving contest like Smeggy Smurf up there.

You realize most of South America falls in high quality ariable land, microclimates, and has plenty of fresh water going fo it?  And many companies are setting up huge vegetable grow ops there?

what is the price of jet fuel these days?
Just how much are you willing/able to pay for a tomato?


Cargo ships my friend, you might have heard of them. Tomatos are already expensive, so I imagine if I can get bananas for 1-1.50 an lb from South America, they can do us a better deal on tomatoes as well.
 
2014-03-03 08:46:44 PM

super_grass: Massive dam removal projects can't help their water storing capacity either:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23508105/californias-biggest-dam-remov al -project-history-begins-carmel

/ B... but muh delta smelt!


Nice link. You should have read it.

"But now it's obsolete and at risk of collapsing in an earthquake. And its reservoir is so silted up with sand and gravel that it hasn't been used to supply water since 2002."
 
2014-03-03 08:58:48 PM

Mark Ratner: What about hooking up a giant outboard motor onto an iceberg, and moving it to California?
[std3.ru image 400x227]


This has been proposed since (I think) the 1970's. There are a number of technological problems. Among them are the berg may break up under tow, it may melt and the melting is not uniform. The berg under tow without some sort of insulation is going to form a cavity in the front. That cavity introduces a number of problems that were insurmountable at first. Current ideas are to wrap the berg with an insulator.
Computer modeling indicates towing may be technologically feasible now, though the breakup problem still can be a bit of a wild card in the mix. However for all the 'it can be done' no one is trying or has done it.
 
2014-03-03 09:13:06 PM
My state is better than your state!

Honestly though, Cali, no one cares about your avocados.
 
2014-03-03 09:14:26 PM

a particular individual: axeeugene: You live in a place with no water? FARK OFF.

Careful with that, axeeugene. Water only exists in three states.


Oh how *wrong* you are, a particular individual:

http://www.space.com/23028-super-earth-water-atmosphere-alien-planet .h tml
 
2014-03-03 09:14:33 PM

axeeugene: California can have our water when they pry it from our cold, cold, COLD dead hands.

The Great Lakes Compact is a wonderful thing.

You live in a place with no water? FARK OFF.

/Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.


Effin a.

Gawdzila: axeeugene: California can have our water when they pry it from our cold, cold, COLD dead hands.

The Great Lakes Compact is a wonderful thing.

You live in a place with no water? FARK OFF.

Okay, we'll see how you like the quintupled produce prices.


Nemo's Brother: So I guess California needs the fly over states more than they need California?

[gifrific.com image 245x285]

Hardly.  It's fairly symbiotic.  You give us water, we grow your food.  California grows 80% of the fruits and veggies for the country in general, and close to 100% of a lot of common specialty crops.  Oh, except feed corn and soybeans, of course.  You got that covered.


www.michiganagriculture.com

/Cali might grow 80% of the produce
//but we can take care of ourselves in that regard
///and have 22% of the world's fresh surface water
 
2014-03-03 09:20:55 PM

theflatline: blender61: theflatline: Gawdzila: 30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply?

Largely because California's high quality arable land, year-round growing climate, and variety of microclimates enable it to either get much higher yields for most crops, or to grow lots of things that other states really simply cannot grow effectively.  It's a reasonable arrangement to maximize the production from our available resources, assuming you aren't interested in engaging in some kind of ineffectual state-d*ck-waving contest like Smeggy Smurf up there.

You realize most of South America falls in high quality ariable land, microclimates, and has plenty of fresh water going fo it?  And many companies are setting up huge vegetable grow ops there?

what is the price of jet fuel these days?
Just how much are you willing/able to pay for a tomato?

Cargo ships my friend, you might have heard of them. Tomatos are already expensive, so I imagine if I can get bananas for 1-1.50 an lb from South America, they can do us a better deal on tomatoes as well.


Ah cargo ships, good point, never heard of them.
Most things don't ship a well as bananas. If you have ever tasted a real, not picked rock green banana you might not be so gung ho about a product shipped from a continent away.
Hot house tomatoes from the EU or Israel suck compared to the real thing. They were developed to ship well, not taste good.
Mexican tomatoes, they use pesticides/herbicides that were banned long ago in the U.S.

The invention of the refrigerated box car changed how America ate.
I'ts not just "salad bowl" stuff. It's the wine, cotton, fruit, nuts, corn, rice citrus, melons. You eat what we grow.
 
2014-03-03 09:32:19 PM
Tell Tim we are sending it by trickle down affect.
 
2014-03-03 09:55:24 PM

blender61: theflatline: blender61: theflatline: Gawdzila: 30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply?

Largely because California's high quality arable land, year-round growing climate, and variety of microclimates enable it to either get much higher yields for most crops, or to grow lots of things that other states really simply cannot grow effectively.  It's a reasonable arrangement to maximize the production from our available resources, assuming you aren't interested in engaging in some kind of ineffectual state-d*ck-waving contest like Smeggy Smurf up there.

You realize most of South America falls in high quality ariable land, microclimates, and has plenty of fresh water going fo it?  And many companies are setting up huge vegetable grow ops there?

what is the price of jet fuel these days?
Just how much are you willing/able to pay for a tomato?

Cargo ships my friend, you might have heard of them. Tomatos are already expensive, so I imagine if I can get bananas for 1-1.50 an lb from South America, they can do us a better deal on tomatoes as well.

Ah cargo ships, good point, never heard of them.
Most things don't ship a well as bananas. If you have ever tasted a real, not picked rock green banana you might not be so gung ho about a product shipped from a continent away.
Hot house tomatoes from the EU or Israel suck compared to the real thing. They were developed to ship well, not taste good.
Mexican tomatoes, they use pesticides/herbicides that were banned long ago in the U.S.

The invention of the refrigerated box car changed how America ate.
I'ts not just "salad bowl" stuff. It's the wine, cotton, fruit, nuts, corn, rice citrus, melons. You eat what we grow.


You might have missed the post where I lived in Colombia...  You cannot go a day without banana in some form being fed to you.  Banano Criollo are the best but are not exported because they are not pretty.

I live in Florida and grow my own creole(heirloom) tomatoes and I get a good 7-8 mon
ths of production out of them.  They taste far better than any Californian grown made for the mass market tomato.

I also grow watermelon, okra,
cantaloupe, pole beans, okra, green onions, carrots, lettuce and cabbage.

I get my rice from Gueydan, Louisiana.


California does not hold the lock on corn that would be Iowa and cotton would be Texas.  USDA ranks Florida number 1 in citrus.    Melons are grown in just about every US state.
 
2014-03-03 10:03:46 PM

The Southern Dandy: See, California is basically SF and LA, surrounded by Alabama.  I'm betting the snow hauling guy is from the Alabama part of California.


He is.  Davis is about 15 miles east of me and five miles west of Sacramento.
It's surrounded by flat farmland for as far as you can see.  UC Davis is a
major ag college town.  Pickups & Prius though they're really big on
bicycles on the campus.  Little Timmy is a product of government schooling
and not enough Murder Burgers.  (now called Redrump Burgers for some
asinine reason)
 
2014-03-03 10:04:04 PM
Started peeing to the west whenever I take a leak outside.

/California - you can thank me later.
 
2014-03-03 10:08:13 PM

ytterbium: Lest anyone forgets, there is a compact amongst the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Waterways, USA and Canada, that no one can take our water. I believe MI is prepared to use military force if needed.


yes sir, but personally, yours truly could never fight for these ungrateful feminazi women.

so what i say is, let everybody drain our lakes dry
 
2014-03-03 10:22:47 PM
Though I do remember someone asking the same sort of question when flooding was the issue of the day here in California (we always have one or the other) - why can't we just take a bunch of tanker trucks, fill them up above x city that is going to flood, and have them dump below the city?

Obviously, they've never heard of the Yolo Bypass.  Look it up.
Davis sits on the western edge of it.  It's purpose is exactly as you
describe:  take the water out of the Sacramento River up there
and put it back in the river down there.   Before the bypass the
river used to flood Sacramento on a regular basis.  I'm not that
old but I remember the Marysville & Yuba City flood of 1955
You can build levees only so high.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtSg9CeaJwA
 
2014-03-03 10:25:12 PM

30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply? Talk about stupid. If Cali doesn't get water from the surrounding sates we all take it in the a$$ every time we buy food.


Because California has some of the most fertile agricultural land in the world. That land covers an area just under the size of West Virginia. There's usually much more rain and snowfall every year too, just hasn't been as much lately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Central_Valley 1
 
2014-03-03 10:38:20 PM
Gawdzila:

Hardly.  It's fairly symbiotic.  You give us water, we have poor Mexican families grow your food.  Poor Mexican families grow 80% of the fruits and veggies for the country in general, and close to 100% of a lot of common specialty crops.  Oh, except feed corn and soybeans, of course.  You got that covered.

There, that's better
 
2014-03-03 11:01:03 PM
I constantly wonder why I don't poop gold.
 
2014-03-03 11:26:49 PM
It's not a bad idea.  If only the laws of nature were different.

/There are massive hills of snow on curbsides of my town.  It's a major pain on some intersections because they block your view of oncoming cars.
 
2014-03-03 11:55:52 PM

StopLurkListen: //not sure if serious


It's not serious.

Yes there are certainly creationists dumb enough to believe it, but those people are probably not smart enough to do the math required.
 
2014-03-04 01:09:43 AM

theflatline: You might have missed the post where I lived in Colombia... You cannot go a day without banana in some form being fed to you. Banano Criollo are the best but are not exported because they are not pretty.


I read that post.
I was agreeing with you. commercial bananas are terrible. The only thing they have going for them is that they ship well. The 100 or so or varieties are much better.

I only choose bananas because they ship well (picked green, bagged and gassed), as apposed to tomatoes which don't.
Many type of fruits and veggies don't ship well for a number of reasons and often taste and quality suffer in order to produce a variety that will hold up to shipping.

It not that cal has a lock on these things. we don't. It is the fact that Cal produces so much of it. If it was removed from the market place prices for everyday items would go through the roof for a product that isn't as good.

peace

here is 2 quick links
http://www.seecalifornia.com/farms/california-farm-facts.html

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Ag_Overview/AgOverview_ CA .pdf
 
2014-03-04 02:41:38 AM

Gawdzila: Eddie Adams from Torrance: If only California were located near some large body of water.

Of course, that would be of no use unless you had abundant sunshine for desalinization.

Or some nice sheets of graphene.
Abundant sunshine or no, current desalination techniques are too energy-inefficient to be practical on such a large scale for anything but a last resort.  California is responsible for too much of the country's produce to fulfill our water needs using flash or RO desalination.  New nano-filters would change that, though.


Necessity breeds innovation... or at least, I freakin' hope it does. I remember some drought back in the early 90s that was bad enough it made an impact on current TV shows (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103486/ ) - it's past time this technology got serious.
 
2014-03-04 02:59:41 AM
News flash Midwest, if you actually think California isn't vital for the American economy and agriculture, look at your own crap state and realize how worthless the Midwest is in comparison.
 
2014-03-04 01:49:10 PM
bunch of thin skinned californiassholes around here

Can we keep your agriculture and dump your urban residents? Please?

//lude
 
Displayed 115 of 115 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report