California is responsible for around 15% of the total US agricultural production and much of their products are not produced anywhere else.
We can do without California's products. The economics of farming in California (expensive water and cheap migrant labor) mean that we grow cash crops which are often exported. Example: avocados, wine grapes, strawberries, nursery plants and orchids (#4 by value). The common theme is that they are all labor-intensive and don't benefit yet from automation. "Real" food, like grains, are grown in the midwest.
The funny thing is I have been using yahoos separate weather app and hidden the included one and it has all the capabilities (including map and 10 day forcast, barometer, feels like) of the one being trumpeted by IOS8. Everyone is a little late to the party.
California is responsible for around 15% of the total US agricultural production and much of their products are not produced anywhere else.
We can do without California's products. The economics of farming in California (expensive water and cheap migrant labor) mean that we grow cash crops which are often exported. Example: avocados, wine grapes, strawberries, nursery plants and orchids (#4 by value). The common theme is that they are all labor-intensive and don't benefit yet from automation. "Real" food, like grains, are grown in the midwest.
You mean the states that receive 80% of the farm subsidies which are largely paid by California. California pays 300 billion to the federal government in taxes, the highest of any state, where the the states producing grains and receiving the farm subsidies pay the least. Sounds fair.
You mean the states that receive 80% of the farm subsidies whicht are largely paid by California. California pays 300 billion to the federal government in taxes, the highest of any state, where the the states producing grains and receiving the farm subsidies pay the least. Sounds fair.
California is the #1 recipient in farm subsidies via water, often through financing of water projects. If you look at the numbers, something like $60 Billion/decade in taxpayer funds go to that 77% agricultural water system, which is a large fraction of "traditional" farm subsidies.
Farmers buy water far cheaper than anybody else as a result. Our local water usage rates (infrastructure use like pipes are flat-rate and billed separately), for 100 cu ft: Normal $5.12, Reclaimed $2.69, Agricultural from city water $1.38, Ag from canals $1.26. Why the difference? Taxpayer subsidies.
California is the #1 recipient in farm subsidies via water, often through financing of water projects. If you look at the numbers, something like $60 Billion/decade in taxpayer funds go to that 77% agricultural water system, which is a large fraction of "traditional" farm subsidies.
Completely wrong. California water projects are 80% financed by bonds and not the taxpayers. The federal government contribution is minimal and allocated for flood control. You need to 'look' at the numbers.
Completely wrong. California water projects are 80% financed by bonds and not the taxpayers. The federal government contribution is minimal and allocated for flood control. You need to 'look' at the numbers.
Completely wrong. Look at Prop 84.
Authorizes $5,388,000,000 in general obligation bonds to fund projects and expenditures, to be repaid from the state’s General Fund.
State cost of about $10.5 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($5.4 billion) and interest ($5.1 billion) costs on the bonds. Payments of about $350 million per year.
General fund = taxpayer dollars. If the projects weren't to use general taxpayer dollars, it would be repaid by the project.
Federal aid comes from US Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers projects. Basically Feds foot the bill for the water by paying for dams and interstate projects and give it free to the State. Example: Sacramento Delta is all ACE, all of the major Northern California dams are USBR, which counters your second point.
I know it is just a 'pipe' dream. Moving water from flood areas would never work because it comes too fast. It would require massive drainage projects to capture it fast enough to help mitigate the damage. It just makes me crazy to see so much unwanted water and snow on the TV news when California needs it so badly. 20% electricity cost is nothing compared to having all vegetation die and having huge fire fighting costs.
Here in the Northeast we've been drenched with snow then rain since the beginning of the year. Any amateur meteorologist out there care to explain how California isn't drenched with water from the Pacific Ocean since weather on the northern hemisphere travels West to East most of the time.
Sure would be cool if Apple could contract with WeatherUnderground Classic (not the mobile app). no matter what you are looking for it's by far the best content and has the greatest accuracy. In fact it is more comprehensive and accurate than the weather that FAA provides to airlines.
Well, in a way, they did. I believe the weather channel bought weather underground last year.
Funnily enough, I had the same reaction after hearing the news. Hopefully, they don't ruin it.
Well, two years and the website is still up. That’s better than most companies. I can’t imagine them keeping it around, though; it would only take away from their own website, and “we can’t have that”.
Federal aid comes from US Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers projects. Basically Feds foot the bill for the water by paying for dams and interstate projects and give it free to the State. Example: Sacramento Delta is all ACE, all of the major Northern California dams are USBR, which counters your second point.
You can try to spin it any way you like, but California pays way more into the federal coffers than it receives from them. California pays several times more than all the midwest grain producing states combined.
We definitely need some severe weather here in California. I'd tear out my landscaping and put in drought tolerant plants but the association and the city do not permit that. It is getting to the point where I feel guilty about my water usage but it is already as low as I can go and still maintain the garden. In the US we have gas and oil pipelines crossing the country. I wish we had the same ability to move water. Some places in the mid-west are flooded and other places like the southwest are completely dried up. We haven't had any measurable rain here in a year.
Here in Sydney, where the dams almost ran dry after almost ten years of drought we have the opposite council requirements.
The garden and lawn I planted is all drought tolerant mainly Australian native plants, we had to install a rainwater tank which is used for flushing toilets, the washing machine, washing the car and watering the gardens (which I never do anyway).
The only thing I do is mow the lawn now and then and cut plants back every couple of years.
[CONTENTEMBED=/t/180831/weather-channel-providing-apple-more-detailed-data-for-ios-8-weather-app-than-yahoo-did#post_2553401 layout=inline]It's stunning how odd and refreshing this statement looks, as it's SO rare for anyone to admit they're wrong on the internet. [/CONTENTEMBED]
Comments
We can do without California's products. The economics of farming in California (expensive water and cheap migrant labor) mean that we grow cash crops which are often exported. Example: avocados, wine grapes, strawberries, nursery plants and orchids (#4 by value). The common theme is that they are all labor-intensive and don't benefit yet from automation. "Real" food, like grains, are grown in the midwest.
We can do without California's products. The economics of farming in California (expensive water and cheap migrant labor) mean that we grow cash crops which are often exported. Example: avocados, wine grapes, strawberries, nursery plants and orchids (#4 by value). The common theme is that they are all labor-intensive and don't benefit yet from automation. "Real" food, like grains, are grown in the midwest.
You mean the states that receive 80% of the farm subsidies which are largely paid by California. California pays 300 billion to the federal government in taxes, the highest of any state, where the the states producing grains and receiving the farm subsidies pay the least. Sounds fair.
You mean the states that receive 80% of the farm subsidies whicht are largely paid by California. California pays 300 billion to the federal government in taxes, the highest of any state, where the the states producing grains and receiving the farm subsidies pay the least. Sounds fair.
California is the #1 recipient in farm subsidies via water, often through financing of water projects. If you look at the numbers, something like $60 Billion/decade in taxpayer funds go to that 77% agricultural water system, which is a large fraction of "traditional" farm subsidies.
Farmers buy water far cheaper than anybody else as a result. Our local water usage rates (infrastructure use like pipes are flat-rate and billed separately), for 100 cu ft: Normal $5.12, Reclaimed $2.69, Agricultural from city water $1.38, Ag from canals $1.26. Why the difference? Taxpayer subsidies.
California is the #1 recipient in farm subsidies via water, often through financing of water projects. If you look at the numbers, something like $60 Billion/decade in taxpayer funds go to that 77% agricultural water system, which is a large fraction of "traditional" farm subsidies.
Completely wrong. California water projects are 80% financed by bonds and not the taxpayers. The federal government contribution is minimal and allocated for flood control. You need to 'look' at the numbers.
Still more accurate than Yahoo!. Now if you’ll excuse me, my house is about to be blown away.
Completely wrong. California water projects are 80% financed by bonds and not the taxpayers. The federal government contribution is minimal and allocated for flood control. You need to 'look' at the numbers.
Completely wrong. Look at Prop 84.
General fund = taxpayer dollars. If the projects weren't to use general taxpayer dollars, it would be repaid by the project.
Federal aid comes from US Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers projects. Basically Feds foot the bill for the water by paying for dams and interstate projects and give it free to the State. Example: Sacramento Delta is all ACE, all of the major Northern California dams are USBR, which counters your second point.
And revert to Android. :-D
We wouldn't be so lucky.
Here in the Northeast we've been drenched with snow then rain since the beginning of the year. Any amateur meteorologist out there care to explain how California isn't drenched with water from the Pacific Ocean since weather on the northern hemisphere travels West to East most of the time.
Spec-effing-tacular. Everything good is destroyed.
Well, two years and the website is still up. That’s better than most companies. I can’t imagine them keeping it around, though; it would only take away from their own website, and “we can’t have that”.
You can try to spin it any way you like, but California pays way more into the federal coffers than it receives from them. California pays several times more than all the midwest grain producing states combined.
Here in Sydney, where the dams almost ran dry after almost ten years of drought we have the opposite council requirements.
The garden and lawn I planted is all drought tolerant mainly Australian native plants, we had to install a rainwater tank which is used for flushing toilets, the washing machine, washing the car and watering the gardens (which I never do anyway).
The only thing I do is mow the lawn now and then and cut plants back every couple of years.
Yeah but what are they gonna do about it? It's tough being the "middle-man" when you're not adding value.
Imagine seeing that from Constable Odo.