|
Many Californian liberals -that includes most conservation groups- hold two opposing viewpoints. Namely, they believe that A: global warming is real and we will experience lower snowpack in the Sierras, resulting in ore water falling as rain; and B: that all of our water needs can be met through conservation/groundwater storage.
These are mutually exclusive beliefs. If we receive more rain and less snow, then the water runs directly our the sea once our dams our full, with no way to recover or store any more. Water simply cannot be stored undergroud without some way of slowing it, via a dam/canal/injection well or spreader dam in almost every instance.
If global warming is indeed real, and we will receive less snow and more rain, then we DO need additional surface storage: dams. Otherwise our reservoirs will fill very early in the winter and we will lose all the water that would normally be released slowly as snowmelt.
On to the conservation point: it is an utter fallacy to believe that if we can just put enough bricks in toilets we can save enough water for the 50 million Californians we will have living here, sooner than you think. Our state does need new storage, that is the bottom line, and ground storage cannot be a reality.
Regarding the comment on "not having ag in certain areas," let us assume that you are a farmer and I am a city resident. Would you believe that I have the right to tell you what to do with my own land, land that has likely been in my family and farmed for generations? Perhaps you also believe that you as a farmer have the right to tell me, as a city resident, that I cannot have a car and must rely upon mass transit exclusively?
I like fish and free flowing rivers. I don't like dams, but I am smart enough to know that we need them, or we need to halt our rapid population growth immediately.
|
Favoured: 0
