Conquer Club

peeps better wake up...

Both the federal Department of Interior and the federal Department of Commerce are claiming jurisdiction in order to control water resources.

California’s water usage is divided as follows:

48 % Environmental (federally regulated)
41 % Agricultural
11 % Urban

Interestingly, the subagencies of these two federal agencies that supplied the biological opinions are influenced by the United Nations. The UN was created in 1945, and the following year, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was created by the UN to act as a scientific advisor. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, a subagency of the Department of Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service, subagencies of the Department of Commerce, are memebers of the IUCN, and supplied the biological opinions. There are many lawsuits disputing the validity of these opinions.

The UN’s scientific advisor, the IUCN also counts the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) as a memeber. The NRDC is the lead Plaintiff in compelling the water cut off. It is important to note that the NRDC has a budget of $87 million dollars, and is funded by the “philanthropic” Ford Foundation. You can check out their website to see the bills they are promoting for ’sustainablility’, like the Clean Water Restoration Act (S787), which could put all water under federal contol, the Law of Sea Treaty that would give the UN incredible power over American marine waterways and the Global Warming Cap and Trade bill.

Huh? title-Rest of post?

Wars and power plays around the corner--maybe 100 years???---will most likely be fought over high-quality water and less on oil and other resources. It's gonna get interesting, ladies and gentlemen.

Phatscotty wrote:peeps better wake up...

Both the federal Department of Interior and the federal Department of Commerce are claiming jurisdiction in order to control water resources.

California’s water usage is divided as follows:

48 % Environmental (federally regulated)
41 % Agricultural
11 % Urban

All this post shows is that what you know of California water could barely fill a thimble.

To begin with Water has ALWAYS been a public resource, regulated by the federal government, except when it becomes fish habitat. (then management of fish is usually under state control). In reality, it would take about 3 encyclopedia-sized volumes to fully explain water politics and allocations in California.

But here are a couple of facts you ignore. 1. the Colorado river, prime source of water for not only LA, but also Arizona, Colorado, etc, etc. .. allocations were based upon a very high flow year, so that most years the river has no where near enough water to supply everyone who has a "right" to it, even just in the US, nevermind Mexico. That Colorado Delta that the "silly environmentalists" seem to value provided incomes for hundreds of southern California and Mexican fishermen historically, not even including the thousands of sports fishermen ... all of whom brought significant ecnomic resources to the regions, (even aside from pure biological concerns).

California has allowed people to build suburbs on some of the most fertile and productive agricultural land on Earth (no exaggeration). More and more agriculture has moved into former desert lands, on the promise of water that was already promised to other people. This is a problem, even setting aside the concerns of saltification and so forth that happen when you water desert. Meanwhile, the very climate of California's central region has been so altered no one really knows the full impact yet. Just for a small example, even the hottest summer day would cool off at night in Sacramento when I was younger. People would run air conditioners all day, but generally would turn them off at night and open windows. I can even remember starting a fire in my grandparent's fireplace at night (granted, not "needed" in the summer, but also not a terrible idea) Now, air conditioners run all day AND all night.

Interestingly, the subagencies of these two federal agencies that supplied the biological opinions are influenced by the United Nations. The UN was created in 1945, and the following year, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was created by the UN to act as a scientific advisor. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, a subagency of the Department of Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service, subagencies of the Department of Commerce, are memebers of the IUCN, and supplied the biological opinions. There are many lawsuits disputing the validity of these opinions.

Most interesting, because the only opinions with any real legal standing are the Fish and Wildlife endangered species pronouncements.

But, yes, plenty of folks will sue anyone who tries to tell them they cannot do whatever they wish ... no matter the reason for the reccomendation.

Interestingly, the subagencies of these two federal agencies that supplied the biological opinions are influenced by the United Nations. The UN was created in 1945, and the following year, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was created by the UN to act as a scientific advisor. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, a subagency of the Department of Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service, subagencies of the Department of Commerce, are memebers of the IUCN, and supplied the biological opinions. There are many lawsuits disputing the validity of these opinions.

The UN’s scientific advisor, the IUCN also counts the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) as a memeber. The NRDC is the lead Plaintiff in compelling the water cut off. It is important to note that the NRDC has a budget of $87 million dollars, and is funded by the “philanthropic” Ford Foundation. You can check out their website to see the bills they are promoting for ’sustainablility’, like the Clean Water Restoration Act (S787), which could put all water under federal contol, the Law of Sea Treaty that would give the UN incredible power over American marine waterways and the Global Warming Cap and Trade bill.

What's really interesting is that you seem to think ocean fisheries should NOT be a UN concern. Its not as if any one nation has ownership of the Pollock stocks, whales or other ocean species aside from treaties and agreements. Again, going into all this in any real depth would take reams of pages.

As for the last 2 parts, water is ALREADY a national and international public resource. People keep trying to make it private, but it is the oldest common resource, dating back to the earliest times.

Similarly, anything to do with navigable waterways is already national control and often also subject to international treaties.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:peeps better wake up...

Both the federal Department of Interior and the federal Department of Commerce are claiming jurisdiction in order to control water resources.

California’s water usage is divided as follows:

48 % Environmental (federally regulated)
41 % Agricultural
11 % Urban

All this post shows is that what you know of California water could barely fill a thimble.

To begin with Water has ALWAYS been a public resource, regulated by the federal government, except when it becomes fish habitat. (then management of fish is usually under state control). In reality, it would take about 3 encyclopedia-sized volumes to fully explain water politics and allocations in California.

But here are a couple of facts you ignore. 1. the Colorado river, prime source of water for not only LA, but also Arizona, Colorado, etc, etc. .. allocations were based upon a very high flow year, so that most years the river has no where near enough water to supply everyone who has a "right" to it, even just in the US, nevermind Mexico. That Colorado Delta that the "silly environmentalists" seem to value provided incomes for hundreds of southern California and Mexican fishermen historically, not even including the thousands of sports fishermen ... all of whom brought significant ecnomic resources to the regions, (even aside from pure biological concerns).

California has allowed people to build suburbs on some of the most fertile and productive agricultural land on Earth (no exaggeration). More and more agriculture has moved into former desert lands, on the promise of water that was already promised to other people. This is a problem, even setting aside the concerns of saltification and so forth that happen when you water desert. Meanwhile, the very climate of California's central region has been so altered no one really knows the full impact yet. Just for a small example, even the hottest summer day would cool off at night in Sacramento when I was younger. People would run air conditioners all day, but generally would turn them off at night and open windows. I can even remember starting a fire in my grandparent's fireplace at night (granted, not "needed" in the summer, but also not a terrible idea) Now, air conditioners run all day AND all night.

Interestingly, the subagencies of these two federal agencies that supplied the biological opinions are influenced by the United Nations. The UN was created in 1945, and the following year, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was created by the UN to act as a scientific advisor. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, a subagency of the Department of Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service, subagencies of the Department of Commerce, are memebers of the IUCN, and supplied the biological opinions. There are many lawsuits disputing the validity of these opinions.

Most interesting, because the only opinions with any real legal standing are the Fish and Wildlife endangered species pronouncements.

But, yes, plenty of folks will sue anyone who tries to tell them they cannot do whatever they wish ... no matter the reason for the reccomendation.

Interestingly, the subagencies of these two federal agencies that supplied the biological opinions are influenced by the United Nations. The UN was created in 1945, and the following year, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was created by the UN to act as a scientific advisor. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, a subagency of the Department of Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service, subagencies of the Department of Commerce, are memebers of the IUCN, and supplied the biological opinions. There are many lawsuits disputing the validity of these opinions.

The UN’s scientific advisor, the IUCN also counts the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) as a memeber. The NRDC is the lead Plaintiff in compelling the water cut off. It is important to note that the NRDC has a budget of $87 million dollars, and is funded by the “philanthropic” Ford Foundation. You can check out their website to see the bills they are promoting for ’sustainablility’, like the Clean Water Restoration Act (S787), which could put all water under federal contol, the Law of Sea Treaty that would give the UN incredible power over American marine waterways and the Global Warming Cap and Trade bill.

What's really interesting is that you seem to think ocean fisheries should NOT be a UN concern. Its not as if any one nation has ownership of the Pollock stocks, whales or other ocean species aside from treaties and agreements. Again, going into all this in any real depth would take reams of pages.

As for the last 2 parts, water is ALREADY a national and international public resource. People keep trying to make it private, but it is the oldest common resource, dating back to the earliest times.

Similarly, anything to do with navigable waterways is already national control and often also subject to international treaties.

yeah well i was only trying to start a conversation, not explain 100% of a situation. way to support a fish over humans

Phatscotty wrote:yeah well i was only trying to start a conversation, not explain 100% of a situation. way to support a fish over humans

No, way to support HUMANS over greed.

Phatscotty wrote:yeah well i was only trying to start a conversation, not explain 100% of a situation. way to support a fish over humans

I believe human beings and fish can co exist peacefully

PLAYER57832 wrote:What's really interesting is that you seem to think ocean fisheries should NOT be a UN concern.

You mean like Rwanda? Yeah, the UN needs to concern itself with fish, never mind those people getting massacred.

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:What's really interesting is that you seem to think ocean fisheries should NOT be a UN concern.

You mean like Rwanda? Yeah, the UN needs to concern itself with fish, never mind those people getting massacred.

Rowanda? My feelings on the matter aside, you are comparing what happens in an independent nation versus what happens in an open environment not really controlled by any nation. Nations of the world use the ocean, depend upon it and have to work together on it.

Besides, who says it has to be one versus the other. The efforts needed to control and regulate fisheries have little to do with combating the Jihadine. (or however it is spelled).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:What's really interesting is that you seem to think ocean fisheries should NOT be a UN concern.

You mean like Rwanda? Yeah, the UN needs to concern itself with fish, never mind those people getting massacred.

Rowanda? My feelings on the matter aside, you are comparing what happens in an independent nation versus what happens in an open environment not really controlled by any nation. Nations of the world use the ocean, depend upon it and have to work together on it.

Besides, who says it has to be one versus the other. The efforts needed to control and regulate fisheries have little to do with combating the Jihadine. (or however it is spelled).

No, Rwanda. And it just illustrates the point that the UN is worthless. I couldn't care less about fisheries when the group (UN) sits by and "monitors" genocide.

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:What's really interesting is that you seem to think ocean fisheries should NOT be a UN concern.

You mean like Rwanda? Yeah, the UN needs to concern itself with fish, never mind those people getting massacred.

Rowanda? My feelings on the matter aside, you are comparing what happens in an independent nation versus what happens in an open environment not really controlled by any nation. Nations of the world use the ocean, depend upon it and have to work together on it.

Besides, who says it has to be one versus the other. The efforts needed to control and regulate fisheries have little to do with combating the Jihadine. (or however it is spelled).

No, Rwanda. And it just illustrates the point that the UN is worthless. I couldn't care less about fisheries when the group (UN) sits by and "monitors" genocide.

Except by so saying, you miss the true significance... and that was my point.

I am not saying Rowanda was unimportant, not at all. I do think the UN or even the US should have intervened.

But if people have food and resources, they tend to fight less. THAT is why saying "Rowanda, not fish" is wrong. Without fish, we will have many, many, many more Rowandas. As well as many more problems here in the US

And, Rowanda would have involved armed conflict (probably still should), etc. Regulating fish really just means listening to science and having some people sit down and agree. Don't misunderstand, negotiations are not easy... believe me, I know! However, there is a difference between Poland and Japan saying "OK, we will only take X fish" (contentious as those issues are) and sending armed troops into a mired situation that has no real clear "good" side, except that civilians are being crushed by all.

jay_a2j wrote:No, Rwanda. And it just illustrates the point that the UN is worthless. I couldn't care less about fisheries when the group (UN) sits by and "monitors" genocide.

f*ck the UN, let's just get the US to go in there without approval. Not like that's happened before, and I'm sure it will work out just as planned.. Oh wait..

INTERESTING! Guess what! Californias who suffered that drought are getting the water turned back on! oops, only a couple of the districts whos congressman flipped their health care vote from no to yes get the water.

People have been starved off their farm because of the endangered fish, but now the endangered fish doesn't matter when it comes to health care. Sign of things to come. Congressmen being bribed with water....WOW

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:peeps better wake up...

Both the federal Department of Interior and the federal Department of Commerce are claiming jurisdiction in order to control water resources.

California’s water usage is divided as follows:

48 % Environmental (federally regulated)
41 % Agricultural
11 % Urban

All this post shows is that what you know of California water could barely fill a thimble.

To begin with Water has ALWAYS been a public resource, regulated by the federal government, except when it becomes fish habitat. (then management of fish is usually under state control). In reality, it would take about 3 encyclopedia-sized volumes to fully explain water politics and allocations in California.

But here are a couple of facts you ignore. 1. the Colorado river, prime source of water for not only LA, but also Arizona, Colorado, etc, etc. .. allocations were based upon a very high flow year, so that most years the river has no where near enough water to supply everyone who has a "right" to it, even just in the US, nevermind Mexico. That Colorado Delta that the "silly environmentalists" seem to value provided incomes for hundreds of southern California and Mexican fishermen historically, not even including the thousands of sports fishermen ... all of whom brought significant ecnomic resources to the regions, (even aside from pure biological concerns).

California has allowed people to build suburbs on some of the most fertile and productive agricultural land on Earth (no exaggeration). More and more agriculture has moved into former desert lands, on the promise of water that was already promised to other people. This is a problem, even setting aside the concerns of saltification and so forth that happen when you water desert. Meanwhile, the very climate of California's central region has been so altered no one really knows the full impact yet. Just for a small example, even the hottest summer day would cool off at night in Sacramento when I was younger. People would run air conditioners all day, but generally would turn them off at night and open windows. I can even remember starting a fire in my grandparent's fireplace at night (granted, not "needed" in the summer, but also not a terrible idea) Now, air conditioners run all day AND all night.

Interestingly, the subagencies of these two federal agencies that supplied the biological opinions are influenced by the United Nations. The UN was created in 1945, and the following year, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was created by the UN to act as a scientific advisor. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, a subagency of the Department of Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service, subagencies of the Department of Commerce, are memebers of the IUCN, and supplied the biological opinions. There are many lawsuits disputing the validity of these opinions.

Most interesting, because the only opinions with any real legal standing are the Fish and Wildlife endangered species pronouncements.

But, yes, plenty of folks will sue anyone who tries to tell them they cannot do whatever they wish ... no matter the reason for the reccomendation.

Interestingly, the subagencies of these two federal agencies that supplied the biological opinions are influenced by the United Nations. The UN was created in 1945, and the following year, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was created by the UN to act as a scientific advisor. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, a subagency of the Department of Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service, subagencies of the Department of Commerce, are memebers of the IUCN, and supplied the biological opinions. There are many lawsuits disputing the validity of these opinions.

The UN’s scientific advisor, the IUCN also counts the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) as a memeber. The NRDC is the lead Plaintiff in compelling the water cut off. It is important to note that the NRDC has a budget of $87 million dollars, and is funded by the “philanthropic” Ford Foundation. You can check out their website to see the bills they are promoting for ’sustainablility’, like the Clean Water Restoration Act (S787), which could put all water under federal contol, the Law of Sea Treaty that would give the UN incredible power over American marine waterways and the Global Warming Cap and Trade bill.

What's really interesting is that you seem to think ocean fisheries should NOT be a UN concern. Its not as if any one nation has ownership of the Pollock stocks, whales or other ocean species aside from treaties and agreements. Again, going into all this in any real depth would take reams of pages.

As for the last 2 parts, water is ALREADY a national and international public resource. People keep trying to make it private, but it is the oldest common resource, dating back to the earliest times.

Similarly, anything to do with navigable waterways is already national control and often also subject to international treaties.

Player, the water has been turned back on, and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF YOUR BS HERE!

that a waste of time huh? Does this shatter everything you believed? No? None of any of this crap you were worried about mattered after all.

Looks like you thought you knew something....Jokes on you.