|
First of all... let's do that farmer/urban person thing... you are forgetting that the urban folks are actually paying for the water being used. All that water on marginal land is pretty much heavily subsidized by tax payers... so, I think we actually do have a say.
Let's say Global Warming is real... it might NOT mean that more snow will fall as rain... it might mean there is less water overall... sure, what falls may fall as rain, but we'd be talking about an overall drop... in that case it would make very little sense to pay billions of dollars for dams that will never fill up.
The truth is that conservation measures will provide a lot more water than those dam projects that are being proposed. We have 1,400 dams in CA... the best, most effective locations have been taken. We are left with the dregs. If you think otherwise, you have been suckered in by folks that are looking for their bit of pork... their bridge to nowhere has become a dam for no purpose.
Don't go throwing the liberal tag out here... how can you be a true conservative if you want the govt. to provide expensive dams that will benefit the few (remembering that almost 80% of water in CA is used in ag, not by urban users). Not very conservative idea there. Heck, it's even a little bit socialist... actually... it's VERY socialist.
So, Mr. Devil... I think you'll find that a common sense solution won't be found in big walls of concrete... conservation is a real part of it... don't say it can't be done... SoCal has actually done it for the past 20 years and there are still massive amounts that can be done... massive... both in urban and in agricultural areas.
B-
|
Favoured: 0
