|
 |
From: Lance (Reality Check-Humans Need Water Too)
Remote Name: 66.82.48.1
Date: 17 Sep 2003
Time: 03:03:01
Water supplies across the South Mid West and most of the Western states is at issue. Many states are undergoing massive projects to insure water supplies. San Antonio Aquifer: http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2003/06/09/daily40.html?f=et88 However there is a foot efforts to destroy the progress and innovations of many projects for instance the De-salting plant idea for the Desert Farmers in AZ. Sierra Club wants to shut the idea out claiming it is going to kill endangered and helpless birds and rodents. The Sierra Club Colorado River Task Force sent an email alert to it’s members stating “Don't let the Bush Administration Damage the Pacific Flyway” Yet the Mexican Delta area is being helped by the de-salting plant. They claim the issues is that by operating the Yuma Desalting Plant in southern Arizona it will destroy the largest remaining wetland in the Colorado River delta in Mexico. This wetland in certain 500 year cycles has moisture and water flows, La Ciénega de Santa Clara is a major stopover on the Pacific Flyway and its loss will significantly affect the entire Flyway, in other words it is a pit stop for migratory birds of which probably have West nile Virus and will carry it to the Mesquitoes of that region and infect everyone within 250 miles including the poor illegal border crossing people, who now have free water stops along the way. The Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, S 1424, is before the Senate and could come to a vote as soon as this week. The House of Representatives has already passed the companion bill. The United States Senate may be the best chance to protect one of the last remaining refuges for migrating birds and many endangered, threatened, and declining species clinging to life in the Colorado River delta in Mexico. So this is what the Sierra Club is saying, they say forget the farmers forget using the water twice, forget relieving some of the water usage situation. To keep an area for birds flying coast to coast to stop for a drink of water? We are talking something less than about 30,000 acres of cattail wetland - the Ciénega de Santa Clara in the best years of the cycle. It is the largest wetland in the once vast Colorado river delta in Mexico, which some years is totally dry and polluted and over farmed and salted from the Mexican farmers, which are small in numbers. Today supports at least 56 varieties of birds at least that is what Sierra Club is saying although the actual species which lives there full time is small and the so called fish threatened with extinction or in decline are really up river fish which have somehow mad it down river and really do not live there anyway. Six thousand Yuma Clapper Rails, amounting to 80% of the entire population of this cross-border species, designated endangered by the United States, which should be taken off the list due to their incredible growth rates on the US side of the border over the past five to seven years. As a major stopover along the Pacific Flyway, every year the Ciénega hosts flocks of birds, some migrating the length of the Americas. It is the major wetland in an area designated a United Nations Biosphere Reserve for its ecological importance and is a Ramsar site, under the international Convention on Wetlands. Which I will not debate here but really these migrating species can land and drink some water anywhere including the Colorado river along the border prior to Mexico. So that argument is silly. The farmers using the water will be de-salting the water before use and the water will be returned which is not used. The Senate will shortly consider authorizing the Bureau of Reclamation to start up its Yuma Desalting Plant in Arizona across the border from the Ciénega. The purpose of the Yuma Desalter is to filter waste irrigation water from nearby farms so it can be reused, but operating the plant will replace the brackish runoff water that now sustains the Ciénega with concentrated brine, usually the Sierra Club attacks brackish water, but since the brackish water is fostering life, now they do not want to change to cleaner water? Whatever? The Sierra Club has therefore launched a massive campaign attacking the Bush Administration for this when it is a solution that the entire set of water users from four states agree upon. It keeps farmers in business, uses the water twice and solves many problems. Yet we are to believe that somehow this is BAD? The Sierra Club cites old Studies funded by the BOR as long ago as 1993 show that the wetland vegetation would not survive the increased salinity, but brackish water is okay? This plant has only operated for three months, when construction was completed 11 years ago, because it was too expensive to run and the water levels were fine, but today we have a crisis. Now drought and the failure of California to resolve its overuse of Colorado River water are the reasons to restart the plant, yet the Sierra Club insists that there are cheaper alternatives, yet have no solutions themselves but point to another ancient proposal years ago by the Department of the Interior, which could preserve the Ciénega. Among them are simply buying needed water from farmers willing to sell, and more aggressive water conservation programs in southern California cities and Phoenix, in other wards commoditize water like energy, who is going to run that? Enron, the Sierra Club the Aliens in Area 51? Please spare me the BS. Who would pay for that? The federal taxpayer, which would not save very much and simply mean agriculture would cease in the region, which may happen anyway without this de-salting plant. The amount of water that flows to the wetland is less than 1% of the annual flow of the Colorado River. How can anyone say this is going to kill 56 species of which only a few stay all year. This is a very grave issue when people blindly follow the Sierra Club Boards recommendations. I wonder if any of the Sierra Club Board has taken a canoe through the wetlands or flown over it in a light aircraft? I submit to you that they have not and simply attack it because the administration liked the solution, which was reviewed by so many different people before it was decided to go for it. Water is a serious issue folks. This Yuma Desalting Plant if you really look at it is a much needed project. There are serious issues with water supply and this solution solves many problems all at once. After reviewing all the scientific data from the proposed project it appears to me that it will be much better for the wildlife there in the region once the plant is built. I am very much for this, you should be looking into it more before blasting this idea. Something must be done and these issues are very serious and this project will provide those answers we are all seeking. Whereas it is fun to battle every project that comes along to show Sierra Club toughness, I have to question any action against this wonderful solution for that region. This project and the BMPs which will be instituted truly solve one of the most serious issues we now face. We are all in this together. And FYI: I have no financial stake in this project, I am not a farmer anymore, I do not live in that region. I was told by the Colorado river Group that my stance was incorrect. That their decision to oppose the recommissioning of this de-salting plant was well-researched and reasoned. The plant cost over $285 million to build in 1992 and was wiped out by a flood of the Gila River after just 3 months. It cost so much to operate, over $25 million/y, that Reclamation decided not to put it back in operation, but in 1992 we had friggin El Nino, so what kind of BS argument is that. I was also told that my support of this project obviously ignores the serious threat it poses to the environment. This is incorrect, everyone cares about the environment and I personally have done much for such causes, but these migratory birds are not going to be affected. The Sierra Club said that the operating the plant is not needed and is not even supported by the Bureau of Reclamtion, of course not they are not farmers? Why would they support something they do not need? What kind of BS argument is that? I was also told that there are better and cheaper ways to fulfill the original purpose and need for the plant, yet no information was given, let’s here it, we want solutions not cry babies. Sierra Club have a solution? Yah like surfing the 9-10 foot waves of the ocean of chilly liquid methane on Titan, (Giant moon of Saturn). Fruit cakes. They would have the entire human race perish so they could look at flowers? The Sierra Club says “The minimal benefits from operating the plant are heavily out-weighed by the significant disaster it would cause. The proponents for it are being very self-interested and aren't aware or don't care about the far-reaching consequences of their desires.” There they go pointing at greedy American business men who have created everything we have and probably believe that the Novels by Ayn Rand were just a joke? No joke, where do you think everything comes from. Farmers grow food dummies and unless you do not eat, you need to watch your mouth. The Sierra Club says that “ The farmers' groundwater problems in Yuma can be easily solved by modifying their wasteful irrigation practices. There is nothing fun about this situation.” Obviously these people have never run a farm. And then they say “This is a very serious matter.” Yah no kidding why on Earth do you think I am even spending my time to review these things? Well, I thank you for your concerns Sierra Club for our wildlife and wetlands communities. Now then I would like to know what you solution is. What is the Boards proposal and solution? It appears that the 25 million per year to run this facility is not astronomical, I believe it will be more than that however. How can the board be sure it would hurt animal life, did an animal come up to the board and discuss this with the group? How can we be sure it would be as big a problem as stated? I think the idea is excellent and a good use of resources, Having studied the regions history and floods and the Famous Gila Flood, I believe that can be fixed. The next 100 year flood could be mitigated with proper flow mechanisms. For instance the barriers set up along I-10 outside of Goodyear to Tonopah. The floods in AZ are known, I do not debate, but they is also lots of GIS data to show where they will occur now. http://www.parthe.net/_cwg0703/00000074.htm Such floods and droughts are known and appear to run in cycles form our research in 1000's of years: http://www.parthe.net/_cwg0703/00000068.htm ---- http://www.parthe.net/_cwg0703/00000069.htm ------ Also realize that having use of the water more than once is a good idea. And granted growing sod or certain high use water crops or rice or something is a bad idea, but for farmers to have this supply is good for people without overly risking our valuable wetlands. It is a good use of the resource. Besides I am unconvinced that the Mosquitoes which also thrive in wet lands is something we want to promote. What is the count there in Colorado now? 39 dead from West Nile? The problem with salinity is already high in the region and the animal life is doing well as per your posting, literally thriving. I personally know many farmers in other regions in the US and it is a tough road. Farmers feed the world, that is a good thing isn't it? http://www.tractorwashguys.com ------ http://www.parthe.net/_cwg0803/00000009.htm Also realize the huge number of food processing plants in that PHX area, many jobs and many types of foods: http://www.parthe.net/_cwg0703/0000006b.htm There are also many uses for some of these crops besides just food, things which will help the environment in other sectors, such as ethanol, plastics, etc and some interesting new things: http://www.parthe.net/_cwg0703/00000078.htm By staying leading edge in agriculture we can find ways to do things without the manufacture of horrible chemicals from other sources, which is of benefit for everything living here on Earth. All of these issues mean that with careful non-linear studies we can solve many problems at once, thus every one wins. In a desert, Water is life. The water is needed and it is a critical issue, if we can use the water an extra time we win, actually everyone (every living thing) wins. Of course my support for the project takes into consideration environmental concerns. I surely am aware of this as well. I find that the criticizing of the project does not take into consideration the reality of supply and demand, agriculture, proper efficient use of resources as another very important factors. These and other important issues are part of the matrix and cannot be underestimated. The email posted only discusses environmental issues and costs of the project and possible detriment to wildlife. Birds can fly. And the way things are, there will be no wet lands at all there in the region as the usage increases after all; look what we are talking about in the areas of Las Vegas, PHX, San Bernardino, San Diego Area growth. Where exactly is the water going to come from, it does not exist to the level of usage and we cannot be confident of future supply in the amounts needed, so using the water twice sure works for me. I would like to see this data, all of it. Also wondering how many people on the Board actually toured this facility and are schooled in it's upgraded technology? If all people on the board voting on such a negative vote and calling for action against such a project have not toured the facility and latest new technology to be incorporated then their vote would be a vote in ignorance, which is unacceptable. So how many people went there first hand, how many solutions other than this retrofit have the board come up with and what are they? Send me all data please. Simple conservation will only go so far: http://www.carwashguys.com/082902_2.shtml The explosive growth and water needs to sustain life on the surface of the Planet in the regions sharing that water supply are in need of real solution right now. This Facility addresses one issue. It is a start and the issues posed about salinity are happening anyway. All the run off goes to the same place. Farming with that water on many types of crops makes total sense. I am concerned about many issues including aren’t you Sierra Club people worried about being accused of using junk science, which seems to be the most recent oppositional attack on the environmental movement, which is all too often justified. I am concerned about attacks on projects, which are step forward and solutions that work. If you find my comments or views inappropriate and cannot fathom another point of view then you may as well stop pandering to the public over these issues, because this Joe Public is under whelmed with Sierra Club Rhetoric on this issue and now has to question every issue that the Sierra Club has on their agenda. Junk Science walks. Because if we are not going to be open to other views, we can never solve the issues which plague mankind or the animals, wildlife or species we share the surface of the Planet with. I can tell the Sierra Club board this however, I am fighting for this project as a viable solution and unless we can get the data you speak of to prove it will kill all the wet lands and destroy and murder the helpless wildlife there, I will continue my positive support of the project and up my involvement with funds and staff. I want to see the data, no one can expect to blindly follow a call to protest anything in good faith without understanding the subject matter, that would lead to death and destruction of the entire human race. Perhaps that is where we are headed anyway, but why accelerate it. Currently we are in favor of the project looking forward to it and will increase the support to make sure it passes. Until the next project, have a wonderful and prosperous labor day weekend. One Sierra Cluber stated “from 1999 to 2000 the nursery industry grew faster than any other agricultural industry, including grapes (an increase of $250,000,000 in that one year alone). San Diego led and continues to lead in the nursery industry, as well as in avocados. California's lead over other states in agricultural market share is nearly double the market value of its nearest competitor, Texas. Approximately 10% of CA's gross cash income comes from nursery products. San Diego's total agricultural earnings for 2000 were $1,253,834,000. It takes a lot of water to feed that kind of profit—water that we are all paying for. Meanwhile San Diego residents bear all the local restrictions on water use, while industry runs amok.” Here wear attacking industries which are doing well, God Bless them, we are in a recession, give those industries and their leaders and businessmen an award for god’s sake, don’t attacvk the last viable industry in a recession? The Nursery Business does take quite a bit of water. But also these trees and bushes are planted which help prevent erosion in CA. Especially since the Nursery Products are used mostly in CA, NV and AZ all of which by having such bushes and trees and shrubs provide other life to flourish in other regions. (I have seen in my travels many of these bushes and trees going into Las Vegas in trucks on I-15 and others cruising I-10 to PHX). So if these areas are also buying these bushes to grow in the desert, who is most to blame? Lots of bugs, birds and cute little critters live in these bushes in areas where they would have little chance of a good quality of life. Living in the desert for some species is a hostile place and the bugs, birds and critters have less of the positive lifestyle they need. In parks, developments and municipal projects, including those which are put in to help such issues, look at all the nice ducks that live in Golf Courses in NV and AZ for instance, you would not want them hurt in the tunderous wetlands and beautiful green grass would you? Besides the little migratory birdies can land at the beautiful golf courses with out being eaten by predictors, the golfers don’t care if they are there? Avocados in San Diego, and specifically in Fallbrook CA, have been plagued by Metaterrain Fruit Flies and therefore are on their way out really. And like the Nurseries use drip irrigation. In Fillmore, Camarillo, Moorpark, Somis, Ojai Hills, Santa Barbara areas and Ventura County CA are much bigger users of water with regards to Avacados, but also realize avacados are very much drip irrigations due to the problems of trees over 15 years old are so prone to root rot. Also many Nurseries that we work for or with use drip irrigation too. Speaking of Lake Casidas and Lake Cachuma they are also some of the sources of that water. Camarillo CA part of which has its own water company coming from Crestview Municipal water company and only uses some occasional Metropolitan Water and although hooked in, does not need it. Santa Barbara has the big lake near Reagan's ranch, which it draws from and has a De-Salination plant which is not in use. Texas makes more money on oil than it can in Ag, but also cattle feed and cattle raising are biggies all in the AG category, perhaps some of you do not eat a lot of red meat, I like a good stake once in a while the protein helps my brain power, you should eat more red meat too. Also temperatures and regional variations eliminate Western and Southern TX from excellent results to compete with CA and that climate. TX is a big state and if you look at the breakdown some areas of TX are very AG based, thus Texas A and M "Aggies". Over all no one can compete with CA and when you throw in Central Valley agricultural numbers the total game is huge. Now there are huge salinity issues there. The agriculture must be grown somewhere and if you look at the Ogalla Underground Aquifer which extends down to Amarillo, the rivers on the East side and the weather patterns over other parts TX has advantages even with all its AG disadvantages. As far as SanDiego, actually a housing tract uses only slightly less water than the same amount of agricultural land, in other areas the difference between ag and housing is a net gain of water savings since in places like AZ, NV there are lots of xeriscapes. In LV the housing tracts, 40% of all water is used outside the HOME. Watering lawns shrubbery, washing cars, spraying off driveways. CA needs to De-salinate or have that as part of the total usage since they are by the ocean and they can. Drawing from the Colorado River when PHX and Las Vegas area are number one and two in growth in the country shows a race ending in a brick wall without some ASAP solutions. Can you break down those 80% of all water going to industry numbers for me, it sounds high and I would like to see that data, it is quite intriguing. With 80% are you including agriculture as Industry? What is wrong with running De-salting plants with Solar, sounds good to me. Should we instead build more coal fired plants to power up the De-salting plants? Or natural gas, which is having some supply issues? Everyone knows we need more Nuclear plants but the ROI takes 150 years with all the regulations. The Sierra Club has put forth a list of Senators for the members to call on to flood and send calls and mail to staffers. I noticed on the list of Senators in your email that many are not listed to contact, for instance many Republican Senators? Why is that? I do not understand? Can you explain this to me? Is water not a Bi-Partisan Issue? Certainly the Republican Senators are our elected representatives and need to understand all sides to the issue? I believe in the environment, future of life and all water issues are very much important to all sides of the political arena. After all we all have to live with the decisions we have made don't we? If we make all issues about the environment partisan in nature we may have no nature left when the pendulum shifts the other direction. When planning grass roots plan of attack to kill such a worthy project aren't we all less served by not encompassing the entire spectrum of our elected representatives. How else can we get all the team on the same page? If we fight over means we can never get to the ends. If this project succeeds and it promotes more things to be done then it in addition to using the water twice allows others to come to the table with better projects. If we reject every single thing, which comes along, isn't that the same as cutting off the hand that might feed you in the future? Is it better to do nothing and allow down the same course to disaster? Is that better for the group so the Sierra Club can use the hindsight tactic later. Saying nothing was done? The problem is not solved and therefore the Sierra Club purports we were failed by the Republican "Pro-business and Big Money Scoundrels?" If they are not made aware of REAL ISSUES and data and scientific justifiable proof of a better solution then how can they possibly act accordingly? Shouldn't they all therefore be listed on your email list? Surely a group such as the Sierra Club can get these important email addresses? All of them. All elected representatives. No matter what their stance has been in the past. knowledge is power and when we withhold such knowledge are we not to blame for the results? Isn't it up to us to make the difference? Any one can make a statement "All blue people are bad, all methods of transportation kill wildlife" Yet where is the proof. And without real proof what are we expecting. Is this entire listserv to simply send out a response to all Senators listed that they disapprove of the De-salting plant because it is "EVIL AND BAD?" And if so what difference does it make which side of the fence the potential voter for the people of the Republic are on? I am so confused as to why anyone would oppose this project, it is a GOOD THING. Anyway I must say when the Sierra Club uses junk data and rabble rousing techniques to kill every project, I have to ask if it is really their goal to find solutions or just run around like a minority squeaky wheel. We can wash those wheels if you cannot clean up your act. Lance@carwashguys.com And I relish the debate on this issue. Bring it on. Let's get real people.
|
|
©Copyright 1996-. All rights reserved.
Site hosted by CCG
Site design by CCG Studio
DISCLAIMER:
Although we exert control over all articles written by our staff and
consultants, we are in no way able to assure the accuracy of any content generated by our
readers. Any information or advice provided by our readers should be used
cautiously, and should be considered as an opinion of such, and not the views, ideas,
opinions, or advice of Washguy.com. Washguy.com., its staff, and consultants
shall in no way be held liable or responsible for any false or misleading information or
injurious advice obtained from our readers, including any information posted to this
Bulletin Board forum. Any information or advice obtained from other readers
through Bulletin Board postings shall be used at the reader's own risk. The
Bulletin Board forum functions as a discussion group for the exchange of views,
information and opinions on issues related to the Car Wash Guys, Franchising and their
associated topics. Washguy.com, its staff, and consultants will not be held
liable for any incidental or consequential loss or damage sustained as a result of this
information or advice. No user shall be entitled to claim detrimental
reliance on any views received from the staff, consultants or other readers.
By using this Bulletin Board and it's related forums, you agree to indemnify and hold
Washguy.com, its staff and consultants harmless from any claims arising as a result of
your use of the information or materials you download from or upload to the Bulletin
Board.
