WASHINGTON -U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday issued an executive order directing the federal government to override the state of California's water-management practices if they are found to be ineffective.
The order comes two days after Trump visited the Los Angeles region, which has been devastated by a series of wildfires.
Trump has falsely claimed that Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom and other officials refused to provide water from the northern part of the state to fight the fires.
His order directs federal agencies to "immediately take actions to override existing activities that unduly burden efforts to maximize water deliveries."
It orders the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to deliver more water and hydropower through the Central Valley Project, a network of dams, canals and other infrastructure, even if that conflicts with state or local laws.
It also orders the White House budget office to see whether it can attach conditions on federal aid to the state to ensure cooperation.
It is not clear whether those changes would bolster California's firefighting abilities. Water shortages during the height of the disaster caused hydrants to run dry in some parts of Los Angeles, but local officials say that is because they were not designed to deal with such a massive disaster.
Newsom's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
If for nothing else, if this gets CA leadership to consider lives and home owners over Tree Hugger and Greenies, then I'm all for it. Don't care if CA has to hire truck loads of goats and use salt water, the policies of CA have cost lives and homes. Apparently someone with a little common sense needs to take charge. The loss of homes is bad enough but, the loss of lives is strictly on CA leadership.
I have a friend that lives in NM, when he built his home, the first thing he did was cut down all the brush and trees that might endanger his home. Sure enough, when the eventual fire did occur, his home was one of the few still standing. It doesn't take a genius to see the possibilities. It's going to cost a fortune to assist CA in recovery and it won't be just CA paying for it. NC is still suffering from FEMAs lack of interest.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-26-2025).]
Originally posted by blackrams: I have a friend that lives in NM, when he built his home, the first thing he did was cut down all the brush and trees that might endanger his home. Sure enough, when the eventual fire did occur, his home was one of the few still standing.
What issues, specifically, with CA water management do you have? Trump is ignoring CA officials, Los Angeles officials, and national firefighting officials, all of whom are saying there was no issue from environmental regulation. We're squeezing everything we can out of the "hydrants ran dry" but that has already been covered. It IS an issue, but not one routing water to Los Angeles at large, and not driven by environmentalism in any way.
Originally posted by NewDustin: What issues, specifically, with CA water management do you have?
Ask the farmers who have no irrigation water but the lawns are plush green in LA and San Diego. They have plenty of water they let, mandate, flow to the Pacific Ocean. Everybody upstream, other States, can use it, California ? They do not.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Trump is ignoring CA officials, Los Angeles officials, and national firefighting officials, all of whom are saying there was no issue from environmental regulation. We're squeezing everything we can out of the "hydrants ran dry" but that has already been covered. It IS an issue, but not one routing water to Los Angeles at large, and not driven by environmentalism in any way.
No no no, wrong. Of course California does not regulate environmental issues, . {SARCASM}
The hydrants ran dry in 1961. What was it exactly that was covered about the hydrants running dry this time ? I have heard no explanation as to why.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: This is, however, highlighting people's ignorance about CA politics. From the outside in -if all you are seeing is "that librul state!!1!"- I can dig why you'd think this, but the water rights in CA are ANYTHING but environmentally driven, ...
You have some 'splainng to do'. 'Splain this, everything in California is environmentally driven.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: CA would let the farms run dry and San Diego atrophy before they made LA ration water, that is actually the law of the state.
That would be what is called a called a clue. How rucked up is that ? Why is LA the high horse ?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: They are also ignoring that LA had access to historic levels of water during the firefighting.[/URL]
Including the Pacific Ocean. Them greenies are always complaining the sea level is rising.
Originally posted by cliffw: Ask the farmers who have no irrigation water but the lawns are plush green in LA and San Diego. They have plenty of water they let, mandate, flow to the Pacific Ocean. Everybody upstream, other States, can use it, California ? They do not.
Given that I grew up just North of Fresno, most of my family still lives in the Central Valley, and I am close friends with several Valley farmers, I think I might be the only person on this forum that literally could go ask one about their irrigation woes I'm not sure what upstream water you're referring to though. CA diverts plenty of it, they just send it all to LA. You far overestimate how much of it gets allocated to San Diego, though. They're stuck using what's left of the Colorado and wishing de-sal wasn't so expensive.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: That would be what is called a called a clue. How rucked up is that ? Why is LA the high horse ?
Because CA has not always been liberal and LA was politically very powerful when the state's population was increasing. That 'Water Wars' wiki I posted goes over it pretty well, and is actually a decent read. There's a book named 'The Fragmented Metropolis' that gives an excellent account of the events, along with a fantastic analysis on how LA became what it is. I'm having a hard time finding a digital copy, though. That reminds me! Have you had a chance to check out 'The Foundations of Morality' yet?
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Including the Pacific Ocean. Them greenies are always complaining the sea level is rising.
Why fly a helicopter in 100mph winds out to the ocean to try to scoop up water that is going to degrade your equipment and destroy plant life when you have an abundance of fresh water available that wouldn't require/do any of that? The only reason I can come up with is irrational hatred for both LA and helicopter pilots. The LA part I get.
Originally posted by NewDustin: Given that I grew up just North of Fresno, most of my family still lives in the Central Valley, and I am close friends with several Valley farmers, I think I might be the only person on this forum that literally could go ask one about their irrigation woes.
That would not be true. We have quite a few California residents on this forum. Prove me wrong about the my claimed irrigation woes.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I'm not sure what upstream water you're referring to though. CA diverts plenty of it, they just send it all to LA. You far overestimate how much of it gets allocated to San Diego, though. They're stuck using what's left of the Colorado and wishing de-sal wasn't so expensive.
Do you mean what's left of the Colorado River discharge which California lets get to the Pacific Ocean ? Do the San Diego get the largess of the leftovers before the farmers get their smittence ?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Why fly a helicopter in 100mph winds out to the ocean to try to scoop up water that is going to degrade your equipment and destroy plant life when you have an abundance of fresh water available that wouldn't require/do any of that? The only reason I can come up with is irrational hatred for both LA and helicopter pilots. The LA part I get.
Every day, I degrade my transportation by using it. It is for using. However it is needed.
How much money did we save by not using sea water. What what cost of all the homes lost and the devastation to so many people ? How much would be the cost of replacing consumable equipment ? How much plant life was saved by allowing the fire to burn ?
Originally posted by cliffw: That would not be true. We have quite a few California residents on this forum. Prove me wrong about the my claimed irrigation woes.
I said 'likely' But I'm not going to disagree with you. Farmers are vilified in the state for growing almonds while nobody bats an eye at LA having essentially 0 limits on landscaping and 0 water reclamation for a giant city built in the middle of a desert. They pump that water RIGHT past the farmers on the way to LA too; the aqueducts are a constant reminder of that. I don't know how anyone who has spent time living in the Valley could think CA has equitable water or environmental policies.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Do you mean what's left of the Colorado River discharge which California lets get to the Pacific Ocean ? Do the San Diego get the largess of the leftovers before the farmers get their smittence ?
You're mixing water sources. The VAST majority of farming in CA is happening in the Central Valley, and they don't rely on Colorado at all. They pull water from the deltas and snow melts (etc) to pump down to LA. When the farmers are suffering it's to keep LA's grass green. The water from Northern CA to San Diego gets shut off pretty fast to protect LA's access, and San Diego is left hoping LA doesn't drain the Colorado before it gets to them, which would also be LA's right to do. The only farmers suffering to keep San Diego's grass green are those that decided the middle of the Mojave would be a great place for a farm.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Every day, I degrade my transportation by using it. It is for using. However it is needed.
How much money did we save by not using sea water. What what cost of all the homes lost and the devastation to so many people ? How much would be the cost of replacing consumable equipment ? How much plant life was saved by allowing the fire to burn ?
They didn't save any. It would have cost more, destroyed their equipment, taken longer, and been worse to use than the plentiful water they had ready access to. Did you see the link I posted about all of the reservoirs being overfull? Why would you fly further to the ocean to engage in a riskier maneuver to get less effective water?
You wouldn't have saved lives using salt water. You wouldn't have saved more homes, or plants or anything. You would have had more damage, more danger, and a worse outcome. Did you watch what Bill Burr had to say?
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-27-2025).]
They didn't save any. It would have cost more, destroyed their equipment, taken longer, and been worse to use than the plentiful water they had ready access to. Did you see the link I posted about all of the reservoirs being overfull? Why would you fly further to the ocean to engage in a riskier maneuver to get less effective water?
You wouldn't have saved lives using salt water. You wouldn't have saved more homes, or plants or anything. You would have had more damage, more danger, and a worse outcome. Did you watch what Bill Burr had to say?
Being a former Army Helicopter Test Pilot, I do understand why helicopters were not used during the very high winds to get and drop water to a certain extent. The high winds would have made doing so a very risky flight. That's not to say it can't be done but, doing so would be at great risk to the aircraft and crew. But, other than maybe a lack of pumps to pump that sea water or the supposed fresh water available somewhere into the existing fire protection system of the affected areas, I see no reason that many homes and lives could not have been saved. If, that capability was not present/available then I'm right back to some very piss poor planning of both LA and CA officials.
Even the Insurance Companies saw the risk and spoke out about it but, apparently no one was listening. Seems to me, someone ought to be in jail and not ruining a city or state.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-27-2025).]
Being a former Army Helicopter Test Pilot, I do understand why helicopters were not used during the very high winds to get and drop water to a certain extent. The high winds would have made doing so a very risky flight. That's not to say it can't be done but, doing so would be at great risk to the aircraft and crew. But, other than maybe a lack of pumps to pump that sea water or the supposed fresh water available somewhere into the existing fire protection system of the affected areas, I see no reason that many homes and lives could not have been saved. If, that capability was not present/available then I'm right back to some very piss poor planning of both LA and CA officials.
Even the Insurance Companies saw the risk and spoke out about it but, apparently no one was listening. Seems to me, someone ought to be in jail and not ruining a city or state.
Rams
The reservoirs were full; I've cited that. The pumps were never designed to fight this level of fire within the city. Call it oversight, call it ignorance, call it outright stupidity...I probably won't disagree on that. I haven't seen anything from insurance companies complaining about the diameter of LA's water pipe infrastructure, but I'm not paying attention to everything. I have no doubt that you don't understand why more homes weren't saved, but that's largely because (unless I'm mistaken) you are almost completely ignorant on what makes good strategy for fighting a wildfire within a metropolitan area.*
*Edit to add: I don't mean this as an insult. I'd put myself and every other member of this forum in the same category.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-27-2025).]
The reservoirs were full; I've cited that. The pumps were never designed to fight this level of fire within the city. Call it oversight, call it ignorance, call it outright stupidity...I probably won't disagree on that. I haven't seen anything from insurance companies complaining about the diameter of LA's water pipe infrastructure, but I'm not paying attention to everything. I have no doubt that you don't understand why more homes weren't saved, but that's largely because (unless I'm mistaken) you are almost completely ignorant on what makes good strategy for fighting a wildfire within a metropolitan area.*
*Edit to add: I don't mean this as an insult. I'd put myself and every other member of this forum in the same category.
I won't react to your post as an insult but, those in positions such as leaders for fire, water, city and state security were warned by insurance companies about the risk of fire due to the overgrowth allowed and apparently promoted by the "Greenies and Tree huggers". The insurance companies requested to increase their premiums for fire protection and were denied. That's why there are so many uninsured homes. Insurance companies started bailing out. I don't know (as you suggest) if the insurance companies evaluated the water supply issues (although, I would think they would), it's part of their business risk evaluation) but, what I am sure of is those mentioned above are responsible for some very bad planning and leadership. What I do know is that every time I've moved, the insurance company wanted to know where the nearest hydrant was in relationship to my home and where the nearest station was located. Fire Services are rated on their abilities and performance capability. I don't know if they investigated the water supply.
If that isn't evident to every member of this forum, it most surely is to those who lost their homes.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-27-2025).]
I won't react to your post as an insult but, those in positions such as leaders for fire, water, city and state security were warned by insurance companies about the risk of fire due to the overgrowth allowed and apparently promoted by the "Greenies and Tree huggers". The insurance companies requested to increase their premiums for fire protection and were denied. That's why there are so many uninsured homes. Insurance companies started bailing out. I don't know (as you suggest) if the insurance companies evaluated the water supply issues (although, I would think they would), it's part of their business risk evaluation) but, what I am sure of is those mentioned above are responsible for some very bad planning and leadership. What I do know is that every time I've moved, the insurance company wanted to know where the nearest hydrant was in relationship to my home and where the nearest station was located. Fire Services are rated on their abilities and performance capability. I don't know if they investigated the water supply.
If that isn't evident to every member of this forum, it most surely is to those who lost their homes.
Rams
I think you are generalizing CA politics based on it being a "liberal" state.
I can't find anywhere that insurers were warning about clearing brush. The insurers wanted to raise rates and CA said "no" (something I disagree with), but overgrowth played very little role in the LA fire. I can find quotes from insurance companies stating that rising prices in the state make it impossible to insure without increased premiums...but nothing about overgrowth in LA county. You might be referring to environmental groups opposing controlled burns or biomass harvesting (I disagree with them here too), but those are almost exclusively for fire management in the Sierras and mountainous wooded areas...they have nothing to do with LA or its fires. LA actually has pretty explicit brush clearing requirements for home owners, though having been to LA I would question enforcement there.
I've posted this before in this thread, but LA has an absurd claim to CA's water: More than the Bay Area, more than San Diego, more than the Central Valley, more than Sacramento. You can check their reservoir levels online, they're all at historically high levels and have been since before the fires. You can be sure the insurance companies audited the water levels as well, and we wouldn't have to be imagining words they didn't say at this point if they'd found an issue.
Originally posted by cliffw: I missed that question. Yes Preface 1 and Preface 2, Forward, and 1/2 of the Introductory (Chapter One).
I thought it was you who sent it to me. I want to personally thank you. I will read it all, as I can.
That means a lot to me! Given the conversations we've had I believe we share a lot of underlying moral principals. It gets a little dense, and I actually read it for the first time with a Libertarian discussion group when I was in my early 20s. It helped me understand a lot of what I feel about freedom and liberty. Let me know if you ever want to talk about it!
Originally posted by NewDustin: They didn't save any money by not using sea water. It would have cost more, destroyed their equipment, taken longer, and been worse to use than the plentiful water they had ready access to. Did you see the link I posted about all of the reservoirs being overfull? Why would you fly further to the ocean to engage in a riskier maneuver to get less effective water?
You wouldn't have saved lives using salt water. You wouldn't have saved more homes, or plants or anything. You would have had more damage, more danger, and a worse outcome. Did you watch what Bill Burr had to say?
You may have missed where I said drilling rigs use brine water a lot of time, which is at a higher salt concentration than sea water. Pumped with very expensive pumps at pressures up to 4,000 psi. The amount of gallons per minute is also enormous. I can not think of one salt water degradation to the equipment, the metal mud tanks, or the drill pipe. The sea water is right next to the fires. How could it take longer ?
The link you are referring to ? With this ?
quote
In a severe drought, Los Angeles County or the city might request to draw water from the Kern Water Bank. However, all of the reservoirs the city and county rely on in Southern California are currently at or above historical averages, according to the California Department of Water Resources.
I did not see what Bill Burr said, I don't know who is is.
. {SARCASM}
