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.

(Salon)   Federal government plans to turn off the taps to legal pot growers: "The Bureau of Reclamation, which manages federal water distribution through waterways and dams, says no water under their purview will be used for marijuana cultivation"   (salon.com) divider line 129
    More: Stupid, Bureau of Reclamation, water shortages, mandatory minimums, tyrants, attorney generals, drinking water  
•       •       •

4377 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 May 2014 at 11:22 AM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



129 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-27 10:17:24 AM  
I'm pro pot legalization. I'm also pro water conservation.

Right now the Feds do not recognize cannabis as legal. So it stands to reason that they'd exclude it from their water plans.

Also, that California has no legislation to manage their groundwater is scary. I'm pretty sure one will pop out shortly, but half of that state is a desert- it should have one.

The article is all over the place. Terrible job.
 
2014-05-27 11:09:32 AM  

Nadie_AZ: I'm pro pot legalization. I'm also pro water conservation.

Right now the Feds do not recognize cannabis as legal. So it stands to reason that they'd exclude it from their water plans.




Frankly, this sounds just petty.
 
2014-05-27 11:19:32 AM  
What we need is a militia to go out there and play dress up.
 
2014-05-27 11:25:17 AM  
Oh, and don't catch rain water either.
 
2014-05-27 11:26:55 AM  
Clutching at straws.
 
2014-05-27 11:29:56 AM  

Aarontology: What we need is a militia to go out there and play dress up.


They'd probably find some modicum of support from the pro-pot crowd, but not as much as the crew from the Bundy Ranch Debacle got from the pro-militia/overly enthusiastic about the 2nd amendment crowd. They'd be technically in the wrong too, of course, but I bet they could go longer without saying anything so blatantly offensive that even FOX abandons them.
 
2014-05-27 11:30:40 AM  
Are Californians prevented by law from collecting rainwater?
 
2014-05-27 11:31:35 AM  
No more cloud seeding, either.
 
2014-05-27 11:31:51 AM  
Ever heard of the federal Bureau of Reclamation? After a decision it just made, a bunch of potheads suddenly do


Ever heard of editing? Salon apparently don't.
 
2014-05-27 11:33:44 AM  
So, they still don't tax hemp.  Check.
 
2014-05-27 11:35:04 AM  

MJMaloney187: Are Californians prevented by law from collecting rainwater?


Collecting rainwater has adverse environmental effects.  It should be prevented by law.
 
2014-05-27 11:35:14 AM  
Legalize it.
 
2014-05-27 11:35:41 AM  
Am I supposed to be outraged that the Feds are restricting a scarce resource for the use of growing food to the exclusion of weed?
 
2014-05-27 11:36:55 AM  

Nadie_AZ: Also, that California has no legislation to manage their groundwater is scary.


I thought that California's policy for water was just to take whatever they need from the Colorado River, with no regard to the other surrounding states.
 
2014-05-27 11:37:43 AM  
First they came for the cattle ranchers and I said nothing, as I wasn't a cattle rancher.

Then they came for the pot farmers...

/Not a pot farmer either.
//So, no reason to worry, I'll be at the beach.
 
2014-05-27 11:39:31 AM  

God_Almighty_Himself: MJMaloney187: Are Californians prevented by law from collecting rainwater?

Collecting rainwater has adverse environmental effects.  It should be prevented by law.


What adverse effects does collecting rainwater cause? Just curious.
 
2014-05-27 11:39:53 AM  
Tenga

Oh, and don't catch rain water either.

That water belongs to someone else.
 
2014-05-27 11:42:01 AM  
Did that article actually say anything of substance?

Besides, I want nice indoor weed, not some dirt grown in a field.
 
2014-05-27 11:43:23 AM  
But, wasn't the NSA just telling Utah that they couldn't stop providing state water to their computer centers, just because what the NSA was doing in those centers was illegal?

Pot, meet kettle.  Kettle, pot.
 
2014-05-27 11:43:23 AM  
"Stoners"

c2.staticflickr.com


If you're going to write the article from the mindset of a 16 year old(heehee*snort*stoners!), don't expect to be taken seriously. You goddamn alcoholic pill-junkie.
 
2014-05-27 11:43:38 AM  

CruJones: Did that article actually say anything of substance?

Besides, I want nice indoor weed, not some dirt grown in a field.


Why don't you just go scrape some paint off the shed and smoke that instead. It's a better way to get all those chemicals. Do you only eat veggies grown indoors?
 
2014-05-27 11:45:17 AM  
Water is pretty scarce out that direction. I'm perfectly OK prioritizing it for other uses like farming, ranching, and public sanitation.
 
2014-05-27 11:45:26 AM  

joonyer: "Stoners"

[c2.staticflickr.com image 250x272]

If you're going to write the article from the mindset of a 16 year old(heehee*snort*stoners!), don't expect to be taken seriously. You goddamn alcoholic pill-junkie.


www.replify.com
 
2014-05-27 11:46:01 AM  

Cortez the Killer: What adverse effects does collecting rainwater cause? Just curious.


It prevents water from flowing to places where it would otherwise naturally flow.
 
2014-05-27 11:47:56 AM  

Cortez the Killer: God_Almighty_Himself: MJMaloney187: Are Californians prevented by law from collecting rainwater?

Collecting rainwater has adverse environmental effects.  It should be prevented by law.

What adverse effects does collecting rainwater cause? Just curious.


It doesn't. Mr. Himself is being a wisenheimer. I'm just wondering if Californians are prevented by law from collecting rainwater. It wouldn't surprise me if they were, but I don't know how the lawman could enforce it unless a homeowner got really, REALLY out of hand collecting - i.e., mosquito pools, rancid barrels, etc. I have a 600 gallon capacity and it only takes about 3 inches of rain to press all my barrels full. I wonder why more people aren't encouraged to collect rainwater.
 
2014-05-27 11:49:23 AM  
A couple of nuclear powered desalinization plants is all we need to solve all our water requirements. What are we waiting for?
 
2014-05-27 11:49:59 AM  

WayneKerr: CruJones: Did that article actually say anything of substance?

Besides, I want nice indoor weed, not some dirt grown in a field.

Why don't you just go scrape some paint off the shed and smoke that instead. It's a better way to get all those chemicals. Do you only eat veggies grown indoors?


Because outdoor veggies are chemical free?  What does indoor/outdoor have to do with chemicals?  You also need far less pesticide indoors, and can grow completely organic.
 
2014-05-27 11:50:03 AM  

Nadie_AZ: I'm pro pot legalization. I'm also pro water conservation.

Right now the Feds do not recognize cannabis as legal. So it stands to reason that they'd exclude it from their water plans.

Also, that California has no legislation to manage their groundwater is scary. I'm pretty sure one will pop out shortly, but half of that state is a desert- it should have one.

The article is all over the place. Terrible job.


It's not surprising.

Water just comes out of the tap.  Californians can't explain that!
 
2014-05-27 11:51:17 AM  

Nadie_AZ: that California has no legislation to manage their groundwater is scary


Sam Kinison might have an idea about all that.
 
2014-05-27 11:52:19 AM  

Lucky LaRue: joonyer: "Stoners"

[c2.staticflickr.com image 250x272]

If you're going to write the article from the mindset of a 16 year old(heehee*snort*stoners!), don't expect to be taken seriously. You goddamn alcoholic pill-junkie.

[www.replify.com image 310x314]


I get it. Because one of those is a *snert* pot.
 
2014-05-27 11:52:55 AM  

Aarontology: What we need is a militia to go out there and play dress up.


That'd work great until 4:20 every day.
 
2014-05-27 11:53:54 AM  

vudukungfu: Nadie_AZ: that California has no legislation to manage their groundwater is scary

Sam Kinison might have an idea about all that.


The guy that was born in a water rich state and lived and died in said desert area? Heh.
He was funny tho. I do miss his humor.
 
2014-05-27 11:54:29 AM  

Cortez the Killer: God_Almighty_Himself: MJMaloney187: Are Californians prevented by law from collecting rainwater?

Collecting rainwater has adverse environmental effects.  It should be prevented by law.

What adverse effects does collecting rainwater cause? Just curious.


It causes rainwater collectors not to have to buy as much water from their local monopoly, thereby denying various taxing entities precious revenue.

Also fluoride or something.
 
2014-05-27 11:55:21 AM  

Lucky LaRue: joonyer: "Stoners"

[c2.staticflickr.com image 250x272]

If you're going to write the article from the mindset of a 16 year old(heehee*snort*stoners!), don't expect to be taken seriously. You goddamn alcoholic pill-junkie.

[www.replify.com image 310x314]


thatsthejoke.jpg
 
2014-05-27 11:55:45 AM  

Nadie_AZ: I'm pro pot legalization. I'm also pro water conservation.

Right now the Feds do not recognize cannabis as legal. So it stands to reason that they'd exclude it from their water plans.

Also, that California has no legislation to manage their groundwater is scary. I'm pretty sure one will pop out shortly, but half of that state is a desert- it should have one.

The article is all over the place. Terrible job.


One of the weirder areas of property law you learn in law school has to do with water usage and management (also called "riparian rights")  this country is basically exactly backwards from what you'd expect.   Like most aspects of property law, this is controlled by state law and, generally speaking the states east of the Mississippi, where water is comparatively plentiful ,nonetheless have laws requiring all property owners along a given waterway to make use of the water in a why that allows for and accounts for the downstream users.  basically you gotta share it fair and square with all stakeholders.

Western States on the other hand where things is a Lot drier strangely enough have gone with the first-come first served model   If you are upstream from another's property you have NO obligation to see they get even on drop of the water flowing through your property,  you can even damn the stream if you so desire and they have no legal recourse
 
2014-05-27 11:56:40 AM  

dentalhilljack: Cortez the Killer: God_Almighty_Himself: MJMaloney187: Are Californians prevented by law from collecting rainwater?

Collecting rainwater has adverse environmental effects.  It should be prevented by law.

What adverse effects does collecting rainwater cause? Just curious.

It causes rainwater collectors not to have to buy as much water from their local monopoly, thereby denying various taxing entities precious revenue.

Also fluoride or something.


I think Colorado said it was because the water wouldn't go back into the ground and recharge the aquifer. I don't buy it, personally.
 
2014-05-27 11:56:51 AM  

MJMaloney187: Are Californians prevented by law from collecting rainwater?


Law of nature, apparently.
/goddamn we're so thirsty
 
2014-05-27 11:57:29 AM  

graeylin: But, wasn't the NSA just telling Utah that they couldn't stop providing state water to their computer centers, just because what the NSA was doing in those centers was illegal?

Pot, meet kettle.  Kettle, pot.




That's the whole point of wanting to manage the water, so the state can decide what is a legitimate use.
It doesn't matter what's legal if they can turn your tap on or off at their discretion.
 
2014-05-27 12:01:33 PM  
It does make sense. When water is scarce, you have to make choices. Anyone you turn off the water to is going to result in their commodity being more scarce and having higher costs. Should those costs be passed to people smoking a recreational drug or from people purchasing food to eat? It makes sense to me to pass the cost on to recreational users rather than people trying to eat. Maybe I'm wrong here. I would expect the same treatment of tobacco or any other recreational product.
 
2014-05-27 12:01:41 PM  

MJMaloney187: Cortez the Killer: God_Almighty_Himself: MJMaloney187: Are Californians prevented by law from collecting rainwater?

Collecting rainwater has adverse environmental effects.  It should be prevented by law.

What adverse effects does collecting rainwater cause? Just curious.

It doesn't. Mr. Himself is being a wisenheimer. I'm just wondering if Californians are prevented by law from collecting rainwater. It wouldn't surprise me if they were, but I don't know how the lawman could enforce it unless a homeowner got really, REALLY out of hand collecting - i.e., mosquito pools, rancid barrels, etc. I have a 600 gallon capacity and it only takes about 3 inches of rain to press all my barrels full. I wonder why more people aren't encouraged to collect rainwater.


Are you collecting from your roof? Just curious about your setup.
 
2014-05-27 12:06:01 PM  

WayneKerr: CruJones: Did that article actually say anything of substance?

Besides, I want nice indoor weed, not some dirt grown in a field.

Why don't you just go scrape some paint off the shed and smoke that instead. It's a better way to get all those chemicals. Do you only eat veggies grown indoors?


You painted your shed with THC?

\if not, WTF are you talking about?
 
2014-05-27 12:06:27 PM  

God_Almighty_Himself: Cortez the Killer: What adverse effects does collecting rainwater cause? Just curious.

It prevents water from flowing to places where it would otherwise naturally flow.


Truth. In many Western states, in particular Colorado, it is illegal to trap rain water that falls on your property because that water is "owned" by downstream water rights holders. There's an old saying that goes something like you can steal my cattle and fark my wife but don't your dare touch my water. Water rights are a real thing here, and the law takes them seriously.
 
2014-05-27 12:07:11 PM  
Pratt and Mack also proposed a solution to the drought in California. Sheriffs should force utilities to divert water to farmers in arid regions in the state, they said.
"You mentioned mining and logging," Mack remarked. "The other one was actual farming, where the federal government has turned off the water to the San Joaquin Valley in California, where we get 50 percent of our fruits, vegetables, and nuts for this entire country."
"You know, we need a sheriff there that is just going to walk into the water facility and turn it back on," Pratt replied.
But Mack said one sheriff wasn't enough. He suggested 25 sheriffs were needed.
"Take 25 California sheriffs, walk up to that facility, and say, 'Guess what boys, we got a court order. Turn on the water, and if you don't, we will,'" Mack explained. "That is exactly what it is going to take."



It's pretty obvious none of these chuckleheads has ever seen Urinetown.
 
2014-05-27 12:07:49 PM  
Cool. Can we also ban the use of municipal water for firefighting purposes at Federal facilities? They can use sand instead.
 
2014-05-27 12:08:07 PM  

senoy: It does make sense. When water is scarce, you have to make choices. Anyone you turn off the water to is going to result in their commodity being more scarce and having higher costs. Should those costs be passed to people smoking a recreational drug or from people purchasing food to eat? It makes sense to me to pass the cost on to recreational users rather than people trying to eat. Maybe I'm wrong here. I would expect the same treatment of tobacco or any other recreational product.


The issue is very complicated in California, though. A lot of the water goes to crops they really, REALLY shouldn't be growing here, even though they are food (like rice, for instance). Also, many farmers have the cheapest, lowest form of irrigation you can imagine, and it wastes lots and lots of water. And yes, if you get water downstream, and your neighbor dams the water on his property and dries you out, you have no legal recourse at all.

As for rainwater, it's good for grey water uses, but you'd be crazy to try and drink it. You've seen the kind of shiat floating in the air around here? Tap water is cleaner and safer than the air you breath.
 
2014-05-27 12:09:11 PM  

incendi: Aarontology: What we need is a militia to go out there and play dress up.

They'd probably find some modicum of support from the pro-pot crowd, but not as much as the crew from the Bundy Ranch Debacle got from the pro-militia/overly enthusiastic about the 2nd amendment crowd. They'd be technically in the wrong too, of course, but I bet they could go longer without saying anything so blatantly offensive that even FOX abandons them.


Apprently all that's needed to get the federal government off your back is a few dozen armed people making threats. Let's do that.
 
2014-05-27 12:09:23 PM  

Magorn: Nadie_AZ: I'm pro pot legalization. I'm also pro water conservation.

Right now the Feds do not recognize cannabis as legal. So it stands to reason that they'd exclude it from their water plans.

Also, that California has no legislation to manage their groundwater is scary. I'm pretty sure one will pop out shortly, but half of that state is a desert- it should have one.

The article is all over the place. Terrible job.

One of the weirder areas of property law you learn in law school has to do with water usage and management (also called "riparian rights")  this country is basically exactly backwards from what you'd expect.   Like most aspects of property law, this is controlled by state law and, generally speaking the states east of the Mississippi, where water is comparatively plentiful ,nonetheless have laws requiring all property owners along a given waterway to make use of the water in a why that allows for and accounts for the downstream users.  basically you gotta share it fair and square with all stakeholders.

Western States on the other hand where things is a Lot drier strangely enough have gone with the first-come first served model   If you are upstream from another's property you have NO obligation to see they get even on drop of the water flowing through your property,  you can even damn the stream if you so desire and they have no legal recourse


Perhaps it's different in larger, more developed areas, but out here in the swampy lowlands of Eastern NC, we collect all we want in rain barrels. The city, while not fiscally encouraging the practice does verbally encourage it, because the geography of our area does not lend itself well to managing runoff from summer thunderstorms that dump six inches in a matter of a few hours.
 
2014-05-27 12:09:49 PM  
I think "obvious" tag would be more appropriate here.  What the hell did they think was going to happen?  The feds control certain water distribution functions, and they're never going to green-light activity that is illegal in federal law.
 
2014-05-27 12:11:43 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Nadie_AZ: Also, that California has no legislation to manage their groundwater is scary.

I thought that California's policy for water was just to take whatever they need from the Colorado River, with no regard to the other surrounding states.


Well, the problem is that Colorado, California, Arizona, and Utah signed a treaty during a historically wet decade agreeing to state allocations of set volumes. Under this treaty, until California can get its full allocation out, Colorado farmers have to just watch the water flow on by. In other words, technically California is only taking what was agreed, but the agreement was so retarded that we're going to have to somehow force them to sit down and negotiate a new one eventually.

Anyways, doubtful this will affect Colorado weed growers since they grow indoors, usually using municipal water systems like any of their light industrial neighbors (hemp growers might be another story if their land happens to be in an area served by a Bureau of Reclamation irrigation project - local irrigation districts will be governed by Colorado water courts, but I don't think Reclamation projects are).
 
2014-05-27 12:13:39 PM  
by Heather Digby Parton

Ah, Digby. The grandmother of progressive blogging who kept me sane during the Bush years.
http://scrutinyhooligans.us/2014/04/23/digby-wins-2014-hillman-prize -f or-opinion-analysis-journalism/
 
Displayed 50 of 129 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report