[BartSimpson]

Regina Regina:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

They'll buy them off.

Wishful thinking on the part of thirsty Americans. The shit someone has to go through to put a dock in a river is stupid and yet altering a river is going to happen by throwing cash at it? That's just crazy talk.

Think again.

http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Home.aspx

[Regina]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Regina Regina:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

They'll buy them off.

Wishful thinking on the part of thirsty Americans. The shit someone has to go through to put a dock in a river is stupid and yet altering a river is going to happen by throwing cash at it? That's just crazy talk.

Think again.

http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Home.aspx

So? It's like talking about the weather. They have zero influence on Canada.

[fifeboy]

I tend to agree with Bart on this folder. Work long enough at it, flash around enough cash and work on enough pols and you will get what you want! It started with Brian and before him and free trade. Unless LA starts to get more moisture, they ( and the rest of the fast growing SW USA) are going to come for our water. Do we have the balls to stop them?

[Jabberwalker]

Regina Regina:

LA can "come" all they like. Unless they're invading, it would have to be negotiated. Good luck getting the tree huggers and "original" land owners to agree to that.

They didn't negotiate with the Mexicans when they took away the flow of the Colorado into Mexico. It just happened and the U.S. was oblivious.

[DrCaleb]

Bulk water exports from Canada are illegal, so speculation about it is silly. The US has the right to bulk export from Alaska, so that's between them.

But putting 25% restrictions on 20% of the water usages seems . . .like a drop in the bucket.

The big water user is agriculture, and if California were it's own country it would be in the top 10 worldwide food exporters. That's the big problem, if they banned water usage for something like almonds, it would go much farther than stopping people washing their cars and watering their lawns. Almonds take something like a gallon of water per Almond to produce!

But no one wants to do that, but that's the kind of thing that needs to be done. Too many people with too few resources can't lead to good things.

[Jabberwalker]

Bulk water exports from Canada are illegal, so speculation about it is silly.

It's already happening. Water from the Great Lakes is being diverted south without an agreement to do so.

http://flowforwater.org/issues/diversions-and-exports/

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Bulk water exports from Canada are illegal

Not exactly.

If you divert Fraser River water into the Columbia River then it can arguably cross the border as part of the flow of the Columbia that is covered under numerous agreements. Then the water can be diverted again near Portland to the aqueduct that Los Angeles has wanted from the Columbia.

Put the pieces together and then think about it.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonia ... xml&coll=7

And pay attention to this passage:

$1:

Oregon laws probably would not allow the sale of water outside the state, but Alaska changed its law years ago so it could pipe water to Los Angeles if the opportunity arose. Asked how much California would have to pay for Alaskan water, former Alaska Gov. Walter "Wally" Hickel said, "Depends how thirsty they are."

LA is serious enough about securing water from Alaska that they spent money to influence Alaska politicians to make it legal to sell water to LA.

Don't think for one second that the real estate interests in LA aren't eyeballing Canada's water, too. And if it costs them a few million in hookers and booze to buy off some of your pols they'll do it.

[Jabberwalker]

It is the ultimate strategic resource , much more valuable than oil and if we don't give it to whomever, it will be taken from us. We are defenseless.

[BartSimpson]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

It is the ultimate strategic resource , much more valuable than oil and if we don't give it to whomever, it will be taken from us. We are defenseless.

No, you're not. So long as you're aware of this BS going on you'll be able to discern the BS when it arises. Just confronting it helps to stymie it.

The BDCP, for instance, was originally supposed to break ground in 2010. Five years later Northern California cities are paying attention and suing to stop it. And maybe they'll win.

But give it thirty years and LA will come back again with a new name and a new scheme for the same plan.

Their Peripheral Canal project was killed back in the 1980's and then they came back with the Delta Tunnels proposal almost exactly thirty years later.

I figure come 2040 they'll be back again.

[andyt]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Regina Regina:

LA can "come" all they like. Unless they're invading, it would have to be negotiated. Good luck getting the tree huggers and "original" land owners to agree to that.

They didn't negotiate with the Mexicans when they took away the flow of the Colorado into Mexico. It just happened and the U.S. was oblivious.

You think a situation where the river originates in the US is analogous to rivers that start in canada and flow south?

[andyt]

fifeboy fifeboy:

I tend to agree with Bart on this folder. Work long enough at it, flash around enough cash and work on enough pols and you will get what you want! It started with Brian and before him and free trade. Unless LA starts to get more moisture, they ( and the rest of the fast growing SW USA) are going to come for our water. Do we have the balls to stop them?

We may not. Somebody like Harper would do it in a flash. Just dangle lower taxes in front of the me firsts, and bada bing. Then there will be wailing when it turns out we need the water and can't access it.

[2Cdo]

andyt andyt:

We may not. Somebody like Harper would do it in a flash. Just dangle lower taxes in front of the me firsts, and bada bing. Then there will be wailing when it turns out we need the water and can't access it.

Thanks for reaffirming that you are the most partisan, simple-minded poster on this site.

Full time status yet? Maybe you'll get promoted to drive-thru window now.

[wildrosegirl]

His supervisor is a few threads over.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Bulk water exports from Canada are illegal

Not exactly.

If you divert Fraser River water into the Columbia River then it can arguably cross the border as part of the flow of the Columbia that is covered under numerous agreements. Then the water can be diverted again near Portland to the aqueduct that Los Angeles has wanted from the Columbia.

And that is illegal!

$1:

Inter-basin transfers or diversions broadly refer to large-scale or bulk removals of water by man-made diversions, such as canals, tanker ships or trucks, or pipelines. The water is not necessarily exported out of the province or country, but is transferred from its basin of origin. Water export refers to taking water and shipping it to other countries for profit, whether by tanker or pipeline, or by diverting rivers and building canals. However, it does not include small-scale water removal, such as water in small portable containers, water used in a product or bottled water.

Under the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act (IBWTA), Canada has protections in place to prohibit the bulk removal of water from boundary waters, such as the Great Lakes. The prohibition is an environmental measure designed to preserve the integrity of boundary waters ecosystems.

https://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default. ... 1356EC91-1

[fifeboy]

andyt andyt:

fifeboy fifeboy:

I tend to agree with Bart on this folder. Work long enough at it, flash around enough cash and work on enough pols and you will get what you want! It started with Brian and before him and free trade. Unless LA starts to get more moisture, they ( and the rest of the fast growing SW USA) are going to come for our water. Do we have the balls to stop them?

We may not. Somebody like Harper would do it in a flash. Just dangle lower taxes in front of the me firsts, and bada bing. Then there will be wailing when it turns out we need the water and can't access it.

I have been hearing about the "economic advantage" of selling of whole river systems for ages. However, I don't think Stevo will be the asshole to do it. I get the feeling that he has more respect for Canadian sovereignty than that. Some of the core supporters could and the Liberals are not above it either.