Conservation and water rights

[golden beetle]

What method of population control do you suggest?

That isnt my expertise.

Perhaps tax credits for people w/o kids in the city?

I dont know.

I'd ask your opinion, but I am worried you might suggest another holocaust. No whitey Republican, final solutions.

Fact is, that markets have expanded to satisfy the increased demand...

But supply isnt increasing.

OK?

So unrestrained markets have brought the earth to its limit, proving that while capitalism and markets are powerful forces...

We need to be responsible.

So either desalination.

Or some reasonable incentives to control population.

One reasonable solution would be to raise the minimum wage in New York City to 30 dollars an hour.

It aint your grandfathers method of population control, but it would work.

 

[MACFLY]

Ha I'm not advocating for the same thing you are advocatinng for. I would not want to see any form of population control (you know like the democrats tried back in the day) look you are creating straw mans that don't exist. Supply isn't constrained and markets are artificially inflated set the moment so I don't think you have a lot to be worried about. Yup want to control the population by giving people tax credits not to pro create. How about stopping illegal immigration? Is that a solution?

That isnt my expertise.

Perhaps tax credits for people w/o kids in the city?

I dont know.

I'd ask your opinion, but I am worried you might suggest another holocaust. No whitey Republican, final solutions.

Fact is, that markets have expanded to satisfy the increased demand...

But supply isnt increasing.

OK?

So unrestrained markets have brought the earth to its limit, proving that while capitalism and markets are powerful forces...

We need to be responsible.

So either desalination.

Or some reasonable incentives to control population.

 

[golden beetle]

Ha I'm not advocating for the same thing you are advocatinng for. I would not want to see any form of population control (you know like the democrats tried back in the day) look you are creating straw mans that don't exist. Supply isn't constrained and markets are artificially inflated set the moment so I don't think you have a lot to be worried about. Yup want to control the population by giving people tax credits not to pro create. How about stopping illegal immigration? Is that a solution?

What is illegal immigration?

Sorry Mac, but gives us your tired, poor, huddled masses.

And kick Whitey to the curb.

 

[MACFLY]

What is illegal immigration?

Sorry Mac, but gives us your tired, poor, huddled masses.

And kick Whitey to the curb.

I remember that quote. It's what people saw on their way to Ellis island. Where they immigrated and assimilated.....legally.

 

[MACFLY]

But let's not digress. I mean illegal immigrants are in NYC. Yes...they need water too correct. So instead of paying people not to procreate which costs taxpayer dollars let's remove the folks that aren't supposed to be here in the first place. This will help conserve water won't it. Probably save some taxpayer money in the process.

 

[golden beetle]

But let's not digress. I mean illegal immigrants are in NYC. Yes...they need water too correct. So instead of paying people not to procreate which costs taxpayer dollars let's remove the folks that aren't supposed to be here in the first place. This will help conserve water won't it. Probably save some taxpayer money in the process.

Ok.

You win....

I gotta walk the dog.

 

[MACFLY]

Ok.

You win....

I gotta walk the dog.

The outcome was never In doubt

Make sure you clean up his poop beetle. Be responsible.

 

[WBDluver]

No.

My argument is simpler than that.

Water is public property.

The public can decide how to allocate it, as it decides democratically.

Look, I love NYC.

But its time to put the brakes on.

And let the city contract a bit.

Ok, so then lets the public vote on it. Of course that would also include the 11 million residents of NYC.

 

[WBDluver]

Yes i agree to give incentives to not procreate. So lets stop giving out more welfare money to those that have children while on welfare.

 

[golden beetle]

The outcome was never In doubt

Make sure you clean up his poop beetle. Be responsible.

Ok.

I am pro immigrant.

I would not restrain people who want a better life from coming here.

I would rather not talk about immigration policy, but to keep simple, I would certainly sacrifice a tailwater fishery to make room for hardworking immigrants, refugees, or political dissidents.

You get the point.

But thats not the situation here.

The situation is that markets have responded to increased demand for water, and so has government.

That demand has been accommodated - in NYC.

But supply hasnt increased.

Do you understand that, Mac?

That we will have to sacrifice this resource, if we don't address the issue?

Is it really insane to suggest that we address the issue, by looking either at supply or at demand?

Is that so controversial to you?

 

[MACFLY]

Ok.

I am pro immigrant.

I would not restrain people who want a better life from coming here.

I would deport whitey.

Not the immigrants.

So you will volunteer to leave first then

 

[Future Fanatic]

So you will volunteer to leave first then

I'll give him a gallon jug of Cannonsville water for the trip to his new home...

 

[MACFLY]

I'll give him a gallon jug of Cannonsville water for the trip to his new home...

Something tells me he's not gonna leave

 

[lightenup]

Something tells me he's not gonna leave

He is mildly entertaining sometimes......

 

[golden beetle]

Something tells me he's not gonna leave

Mac, I just want to make this clear.

That markets - and government together - have been able to accommodate NYC's demand for water.

For years.

And there has been no increase in water supply.

If demand for freshwater continues to increase, and it will, the fishery will be lost.

Rising seas levels, caused by climate change, will increase New Jersey's need for releases of water to maintain the salt line.

I want to make this all very clear.

That it is you who are being unreasonable, and unwilling to confront scientific facts.

Perhaps the tailwater fishery ought to be sacrificed.

I disagree with that, but that seems to be your argument.

Regardless.. We need to draw the line somewhere.

Or increase supply.

 

[MACFLY]

I'm glad we are being clear now.

First I would ask for the scientific data that backs up your claim that supply isn't sufficient to meet demand. Do you have that data?

Let's assume you do and it shows that new york has not met its obligations to provide more supply I.e. More dams, filtration, desalination or whatever mechanism is necessary. If that's the case it seems your gripe is with the very progressive demcorats that you cheer. The ones that agree man is responsible for climate change and yet have done nothing to prepare for imminent disaster. We have had democrat Governors and mayors and state houses for quite some time. Where is the plan? You see the problem here john. Whether I agree with the idea that anthropogenic warming is real is irrelevant. Even NJ has had demcoratic control for a long time so again where is the plan john.

So far you have offered population control (but only for the people that are here legally. Everyone else is welcome to come in and drink all the water they like), tax incentives to stop procreating (does that include folks on food stamps and welfare or only Whitey), & desalination for a city that scribble sought exemptions so they wouldn't have to build a filtration plant.

One can't help but see the parallels to California (another progressive bastion of logic & reason) yep they dropped the ball too john.yet even now the rich progressive movie stars and media types have green lawns. No dams have been built. They release water to try and save a Freaking smelt yet not for actual farmers trying to grow actual food. how is that possible?

I suggest you call up your progressive friends and let them know they got a lot of work to do

Mac, I just want to make this clear.

That markets - and government together - have been able to accommodate NYC's demand for water.

For years.

And there has been no increase in water supply.

If demand for freshwater continues to increase, and it will, the fishery will be lost.

Rising seas levels, caused by climate change, will increase New Jersey's need for releases of water to maintain the salt line.

I want to make this all very clear.

That it is you who are being unreasonable, and unwilling to confront scientific facts.

Perhaps the tailwater fishery ought to be sacrificed.

I disagree with that, but that seems to be your argument.

Regardless.. We need to draw the line somewhere.

Or increase supply.

 

[golden beetle]

Mac, lets be careful to call the Mexicans who are coming in, without paperwork, illegals.

That's some shit.

These Mexicans aint takin your land, are they, and putting you on reservations?

No, they hand wash your car for a few bucks an hour, and wash dishes at restaurants. They are migrant farm hands.

Now, the real illegals wuz whites.

They came and stole shit.

Like yer grandpappy.

 

[Future Fanatic]

Now, the real illegals wuz whites.

They came and stole shit.

Like yer grandpappy.

You're acting as if the many different tribes that were here didn't steal territory from each other on a regular basis...
Europeans came and were just better at KEEPING what they took.

Mac, I just want to make this clear.

That markets - and government together - have been able to accommodate NYC's demand for water.

For years.

And there has been no increase in water supply.

If demand for freshwater continues to increase, and it will, the fishery will be lost.

Rising seas levels, caused by climate change, will increase New Jersey's need for releases of water to maintain the salt line.

I want to make this all very clear.

That it is you who are being unreasonable, and unwilling to confront scientific facts.

Speaking of scientific fact...
Demand is NOT increasing.
NYC has been decreasing their use of water for years...

They've put a lot of time and effort into this.
They can also increase the cost of water to make sure people don't waste it.

There's plenty of water just the way things are...
NYC just can't play fast and loose keeping trout alive to Jersey.

 

[Future Fanatic]

Dluver...

200 years ago those rivers were filled with brookies.

The water was cold.

Yes, it is our right to have a coldwater fishery there.

Would I trade it...

For 100 colorful beads and a bag of wampum?

No fuckin deal.

Without the dams that are there NOW, how would that fishery be doin' today?
Walton gauge is at 106cfs.
According to the experts that post here, it seems that a natural flow at THAT level would have killed the trout off.

Mother Nature doesn't seem to care about your "right" to a cold water fishery.

Today, we should be thanking NYC for what we've got, no?

 

[MACFLY]

Mac, lets be careful to call the Mexicans who are coming in, without paperwork, illegals.

That's some shit.

These Mexicans aint takin your land, are they, and putting you on reservations?

No, they hand wash your car for a few bucks an hour, and wash dishes at restaurants. They are migrant farm hands.

Now, the real illegals wuz whites.

They came and stole shit.

Like yer grandpappy.

Beetle try sneaking into Mexico and see how you are treated. You will be jailed period. If you come into the country without legally immigrating then you are here illegally. No amount of politically correct soft selling bullshit changes that. As for the comments about native Americans, unless you are claiming native American heritage (you know like Elizabeth warren did) your grandpappy ain't no different. Are you planning to leave? If not I think your point is kind of pointless and just another sad attempt to deflect.

 

[MACFLY]

Mac, lets be careful to call the Mexicans who are coming in, without paperwork, illegals.

That's some shit.

These Mexicans aint takin your land, are they, and putting you on reservations?

No, they hand wash your car for a few bucks an hour, and wash dishes at restaurants. They are migrant farm hands.

Now, the real illegals wuz whites.

They came and stole shit.

Like yer grandpappy.

So back to the real point here john. When are you going to complain to the real culprits here. The de,corsets running NYC talk about climate change but don't give a shit to actually do anything about it.

 

[golden beetle]

Ok.

So FF made some interesting points.

First, is that demand for water is DECREASING.

Wow.

Not quite sure what planet he's on.

But let's focus on upstate New York, and the local economy.

FF, you are concerned with economic opportunity upstate, arent you?

So let's focus on your pet issue, which is economic opportunity upstate.

You recently posted some article about residents wanting to SECEDE from New York State, because of Cuomo's ban on FRACKING.

SO economic opportunity is VERY important to you.

SO MUCH SO that you've posted about SECESSION from New York, due to the ECONOMIC OPPRESSION of your region, by NEW YORK CITY LIBERALS, who have BANNED FRACKING.

Am I right?

So let's talk about your claim that we should THANK NYC now!

Hahahaha!

Or your claim that DEMAND FOR WATER IS DECREASING!

Aren't you forgetting your NEIGHBORS, FF?

Ask TR if demand for water is DECREASING.

He'd disagree I think...

Ask any of the local businesses in Hancock, if demand for water is DECREASING.

Why arent you worried about them, FF?

Basically, FF, you appear to want this fishery gone.

I think, in your little world, that you imagine, if it werent for the fishing, and associated conservation...

And with all those businesses - dependent on the fishery, and supportive of conservation - gone and out of the way...

That there would be more economic opportunity upstate....

For you.

It aint about your neighbors...

Only you.

Right?

Mr. FRICK FRACK?

 

[tomfly]

GB I am surprised at you. To suggest population control to save a climate controlled fishery is so irresponsible. The key word in population control is “control” Although most of the proponents of inhibiting population growth have started out with so called good intentions, such as you with finding a simple solution to eliminate the pressure on a finite resource. It has always been the simplest solution. History has shown examples that it ends up with eugenics, Look at the Soviets, the Nazis, the Turks, the Chinese and our own soiled past. The door on eugenics has been shut for some time but there has not been locked or chained shut. As of yet there are no federal laws prohibiting the practice, it can be reopened at any time.

Here is the underlying problem that most fail to see. This is the problem; we can not stop killing each other. There has never been a day in human history where one human has not taken the life of another in an act of violence. Until the day we stop killing each other is achieved, the human race can never fulfill it’s duties in stewardship of the planet. We have never had the U.N. decree “Lets not kill each other day” It has different days that appear to be a declaration for environmental awareness for that day but none address the true underlying problem.

 

[MACFLY]

Well Tom let's be fair.. He only wants population control done on folks here legally. If you are an illegal alien you can come here, procreate, and use all of the resources. It's really difficult to understand how this will help the upper Delaware fishery but I'm sure I n johns mind it's quite logical.

GB I am surprised at you. To suggest population control to save a climate controlled fishery is so irresponsible. The key word in population control is “control” Although most of the proponents of inhibiting population growth have started out with so called good intentions, such as you with finding a simple solution to eliminate the pressure on a finite resource. It has always been the simplest solution. History has shown examples that it ends up with eugenics, Look at the Soviets, the Nazis, the Turks, the Chinese and our own soiled past. The door on eugenics has been shut for some time but there has not been locked or chained shut. As of yet there are no federal laws prohibiting the practice, it can be reopened at any time.

Here is the underlying problem that most fail to see. This is the problem; we can not stop killing each other. There has never been a day in human history where one human has not taken the life of another in an act of violence. Until the day we stop killing each other is achieved, the human race can never fulfill it’s duties in stewardship of the planet. We have never had the U.N. decree “Lets not kill each other day” It has different days that appear to be a declaration for environmental awareness for that day but none address the true underlying problem.

 

[golden beetle]

GB I am surprised at you. To suggest population control to save a climate controlled fishery is so irresponsible. The key word in population control is “control” Although most of the proponents of inhibiting population growth have started out with so called good intentions, such as you with finding a simple solution to eliminate the pressure on a finite resource. It has always been the simplest solution. History has shown examples that it ends up with eugenics, Look at the Soviets, the Nazis, the Turks, the Chinese and our own soiled past. The door on eugenics has been shut for some time but there has not been locked or chained shut. As of yet there are no federal laws prohibiting the practice, it can be reopened at any time.

Here is the underlying problem that most fail to see. This is the problem; we can not stop killing each other. There has never been a day in human history where one human has not taken the life of another in an act of violence. Until the day we stop killing each other is achieved, the human race can never fulfill it’s duties in stewardship of the planet. We have never had the U.N. decree “Lets not kill each other day” It has different days that appear to be a declaration for environmental awareness for that day but none address the true underlying problem.

Tom, this is good stuff.

Read my blog article to stay informed of the issues.

The natural world - GB Magazine

 

[Future Fanatic]

Ok.

So FF made some interesting points.

First, is that demand for water is DECREASING.

Wow.

Not quite sure what planet he's on.

But let's focus on upstate New York, and the local economy.

FF, you are concerned with economic opportunity upstate, arent you?

So let's focus on your pet issue, which is economic opportunity upstate.

You recently posted some article about residents wanting to SECEDE from New York State, because of Cuomo's ban on FRACKING.

SO economic opportunity is VERY important to you.

SO MUCH SO that you've posted about SECESSION from New York, due to the ECONOMIC OPPRESSION of your region, by NEW YORK CITY LIBERALS, who have BANNED FRACKING.

Am I right?

So let's talk about your claim that we should THANK NYC now!

Hahahaha!

Or your claim that DEMAND FOR WATER IS DECREASING!

Aren't you forgetting your NEIGHBORS, FF?

Ask TR if demand for water is DECREASING.

He'd disagree I think...

Ask any of the local businesses in Hancock, if demand for water is DECREASING.

Why arent you worried about them, FF?

Basically, FF, you appear to want this fishery gone.

I think, in your little world, that you imagine, if it werent for the fishing, and associated conservation...

And with all those businesses - dependent on the fishery, and supportive of conservation - gone and out of the way...

That there would be more economic opportunity upstate....

For you.

It aint about your neighbors...

Only you.

Right?

Mr. FRICK FRACK?

You make a lot of leaps here, GB.
Let me try to address one at a time.
First, the discussion was about NYC water use.
You wrote:

"That markets - and government together - have been able to accommodate NYC's demand for water.
For years.

And there has been no increase in water supply.

If demand for freshwater continues to increase, and it will, the fishery will be lost."

You were talking about NYC's demand for water ...

NYC has decreased it's demand for water and continues to do so.

In 1979 NYC used 1,512,400,000 gallons a day or 189 gallons per person per day.

In 1996 NYC used 1,299,700,000 gallons per day or 177.2 gallons per person per day.

And in 2009 NYC used 1,007,200,000 gallons per day or 125.8 gallons per person per day.

Here, look for yourself:
https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Environment/Water-Consumption-In-The-New-York-City/ia2d-e54m

So... is NYC using more water or less than it used to?
So... is their demand going up or down?

 

[golden beetle]

You make a lot of leaps here, GB.
Let me try to address one at a time.
First, the discussion was about NYC water use.
You wrote:

"That markets - and government together - have been able to accommodate NYC's demand for water.
For years.

And there has been no increase in water supply.

If demand for freshwater continues to increase, and it will, the fishery will be lost."

You were talking about NYC's demand for water ...

NYC has decreased it's demand for water and continues to do so.

In 1979 NYC used 1,512,400,000 gallons a day or 189 gallons per person per day.

In 1996 NYC used 1,299,700,000 gallons per day or 177.2 gallons per person per day.

And in 2009 NYC used 1,007,200,000 gallons per day or 125.8 gallons per person per day.

Here, look for yourself:
https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Environment/Water-Consumption-In-The-New-York-City/ia2d-e54m

So... is NYC using more water or less than it used to?
So... is their demand going up or down?

Good stuff.

The data is extremely helpful.

Read this article too...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/nyregion/03water.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin

Here a good graph:



While I analyze it, could you address the other issues?

Perhaps?

Or not.

I'd like to keep this discussion focused on the facts, and your last post was very helpful.

Thank you.

 

[golden beetle]

Mac, I just want to make this clear.

That markets - and government together - have been able to accommodate NYC's demand for water.

For years.

And there has been no increase in water supply.

If demand for freshwater continues to increase, and it will, the fishery will be lost.

Rising seas levels, caused by climate change, will increase New Jersey's need for releases of water to maintain the salt line.

I want to make this all very clear.

That it is you who are being unreasonable, and unwilling to confront scientific facts.

Perhaps the tailwater fishery ought to be sacrificed.

I disagree with that, but that seems to be your argument.

Regardless.. We need to draw the line somewhere.

Or increase supply.

FF, while you quoted me on this post, you cut out the most important paragraph.

That rising sea levels, caused by climate change, will create additional demand for freshwater - from New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

I have not argued that the increase in demand for water is coming from New York City.

In fact, the data suggests that government conservation measures in New York City have been very effective, and should be continued.

Thanks.

 

[MACFLY]

Nice save john but let's review your facts again.
First you stated FF was smoking something to suggest that water use was going down when you clearly said it was going up. Now you reference that climate change will cause us to use more water to keep the salt lines at bay. Ok let's assume you are right. What are your progressive friends in NYC and Albany doing about it. What's their plan? Mayor deblasio agrees we are responsible for climate change. Bloomberg believed it as well. Cuomo for sure believes it. New York is almost exclusively filled with left leaning lawmakers so I imagine they have an elaborate plan constructed to deal with the issue. Surely they won't forget the lesson of California and not plan ahead for this catastrophe they bleieve is imminent

FF, while you quoted me on this post, you cut out the most important paragraph.

That rising sea levels, caused by climate change, will create additional demand for freshwater - from New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

I have not argued that the increase in demand for water is coming from New York City.

In fact, the data suggests that government conservation measures in New York City have been very effective, and should be continued.

Thanks.

 

[golden beetle]

Nice save john but let's review your facts again.
First you stated FF was smoking something to suggest that water use was going down when you clearly said it was going up. Now you reference that climate change will cause us to use more water to keep the salt lines at bay. Ok let's assume you are right. What are your progressive friends in NYC and Albany doing about it. What's their plan? Mayor deblasio agrees we are responsible for climate change. Bloomberg believed it as well. Cuomo for sure believes it. New York is almost exclusively filled with left leaning lawmakers so I imagine they have an elaborate plan constructed to deal with the issue. Surely they won't forget the lesson of California and not plan ahead for this catastrophe they bleieve is imminent

First step is to reduce demand from NYC. Government has effectively done that, according to FF, and the compelling statistics he has provided documents that success.

More of the same type of proactive steps by local, state and federal government are needed.

Second step is to ban fracking. This also has been done, and is an effective measure to address climate change, notwithstanding the protests of upstaters who bemoan the ban, and advocate secession from New York State, due to the perceived economic suppression of the area by liberals from New York City.

Third, recognize that increased demand for freshwater due to climate change, will put the system under increased stress now and in the foreseeable future. Rising sea levels will cause incursions of tidal salt from the Delaware estuary, and threaten Pennsylvania's and New Jersey's water supply.

As of now, releases of reservoir water from the Catskills maintain the salt line.

This is the source of additional demand that I have consistently identified.

So of course aggregate demand for water is increasing dangerously, and must be addressed.

And fourth, come up with a plan that addresses the economic concerns of those who rely on the Upper Delaware fishery for their income.

Maintain consistent thermal regulation to protect the fishery and the local economy.

Thanks, Mac.