Comments on: CA Dems Push Sham River ‘Consensus’

By: Wayne Lusvardi

Wayne Lusvardi — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:40:04 +0000

BELOW IS YET ANOTHER LINK AS TO HOW MUCH WATER AG USES

NOT THE LINK WILL NOT OPEN UP IF YOU CLICK ON IT. YOU HAVE TO COPY IT AND PUT IT IN YOUR BROWSER AND HIT SEARCH. ONCE YOU GET TO THE SOURCE DOCUMENT YOU MUST SCROLL DOWN TO SLIDE # 39 TO GET TO TABLE 1.1.
IT SHOWS THAT AGRICULTURE IS FORECASTED TO USE LESS WATER BY 2020 BUT URBAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL USES WILL INCREASE.

Link: http://www.csustan.edu/agstudies/documents/…/lecture8CaliforniaWaterIssues.ppt
Scroll down to Slide # 39

By: Wayne Lusvardi

Wayne Lusvardi — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 20:55:51 +0000

For readers information:

Here is who GX apparently is:

http://peerwater.org/
(GX = Global Exchange)

Supported by government grants?

By: GX

GX — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:07:39 +0000

Really? You crack me up. What are you trying to hide? i keep trying to go to the link you originally posted (which I posted again above), but it doesn’t work.

i’m not denying anything but instead trying to review the source information you originally posted. Instead of you simply clarifying the URL, I get a barrage crap like this stuff above.

i’m done wasting time with a sham “author” like you. instead I’ll reach out to Steve to relay my experience with you. he and I have communicated in the past and I know he doesn’t play fast and loose with sources.

By: Wayne Lusvardi

Wayne Lusvardi — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 23:44:30 +0000

No more replies to your false accusations. Readers can go to the links and get the data.

Do you deny the State Dept. of Water Resources statistic that ag uses 42% of water?

Maybe you deny the Holocaust?

By: GX

GX — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:46:39 +0000

Your dishonesty and misrepresentations are interesting to say the least.

How many times do I need to ask you to confirm the original water usage URL you posted (you did not post a complete URL)? How many times are you going to dodge the request and try to redirect?

Pathetic.

By: Wayne Lusvardi

Wayne Lusvardi — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 09:01:49 +0000

A person never knows when he is having an impact unless there is opposition. So thank you for confirming I am having an impact.

Filibustering will get you nowhere.

By: NW

NW — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 09:00:11 +0000

Thank you Wayne Lusvardi for this article and your clear argumentation on the water issue plaguing CA. Since moving to this great state 9 years ago, I have watched with interest and perplexity this whole debate. It is amazing how out-of-touch Boxer and Feinstein are on this issue, willing to sacrifice the good of hard-working farmers and their employees in the valley on the altar of bay area special interests and political ambitions. I commend journalists like yourself along with outspoken reps like Nunes and Cardoza who have been at the forefront of cutting through the political BS clouding the discussion so we can return to the ’94 Bay Delta Accord ideals, which as you pointed out was a bipartisan agreement.

By: GX

GX — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 19:05:07 +0000

I really would like to get the complete URL of the original water report you referenced. So it would be great if you could correct the URL you originally posted.

By: GX

GX — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 19:03:59 +0000

I always find it interesting when someone’s argument is challenged and that challenged person resorts to demonizing the challenger. Please point out to me one place where I intimated that I “hate farmers” (to use your words. You can’t because, I don’t feel that way and I’ve never stated that. Clearly, farmer play an important role in our society.

What I don’t appreciate are large businesses who get subsidies and/or bailouts. In this case, I take issue with the effective very large subsidies that CA agribusinesses get. If they were required to pay the same wholesale price as everyone else, they would take a much more constructive approach to usage of our important water resource.

By: Wayne Lusvardi

Wayne Lusvardi — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:07:52 +0000

The same data can be found at the California State University at Stanislaus and at the California Dept. of Water Resources website.

Look at the data. You can pick any percentage you want depending on what is the WHOLE and what is the PART. A PERCENTAGE is a ratio of the PART TO THE WHOLE.
If you want to select a narrow WHOLE then the percentage of ag water is higher. (YOUR 80%)
If you want to select a broad WHOLE then the percentage of ag water is lower. (MY 8%)
The California Dept. of Water Resources has selected a percentage using a middle figure of the AVAILABLE WATER not the HUMAN USE water as the WHOLE (DWR’S 42%).
What I am driving at is the assumptions you use, or Dr. Gleick uses, depend on your VALUE JUDGEMENTS.
You hate farmers and it is predictable that you would pick a set of assumptions that result in a BIG percentage.
What the public wants to know is how much water is ag using in relation to all the POTENTIAL water – because ag is accused of wasting water due to some contrived water shortage. There is no shortage of water – there is a shortage of POTABLE water in a dry year but only if several dry years occur one after the other (a drought).