Re: Thicker Than Water
- From: trudogg <independent@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:54:39 -0400
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:02:17 -0700, "Barbara Lake"
<bglake@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So it's hopeless, I guess. But that doesn't stop me from bitching
about it. And it sure doesn't justify this massive Bush administration
giveaway to California agribusiness, which has to be read to be
believed.
?Kevin Drum
It has been proven many times over that drip systems are more effective than
irrigation, and use only a fraction of the water. ["Studies show that drip
irrigation reduces water use by 30-70% and increases yields by over 50%."
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/Design/drip-irrigation-system]
Such systems may be initially expensive to install but, considering that our
water problems are only going to get worse, it would seem more prudent for
government to underwrite farmers in installing such systems. I can only
speak for California's central valley but, at present, when some of these
farmers are allocated more water than they need, they use the water as a
cash crop (at times even doing this /instead/ of planting), selling it to
the highest bidder.
....it might be seen as more corporate welfare. Maybe if there were
some cap on how big a concern could be for qualifying. I have no
problem with the mom and pop farms getting the help, but the
multi-nationals should be made to worry more about fines that getting
more government dole than they are now. But big AG has a strong
lobby...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Thicker Than Water
- From: Barbara Lake
- Re: Thicker Than Water
- References:
- Thicker Than Water
- From: trudogg
- Re: Thicker Than Water
- From: Barbara Lake
- Thicker Than Water
- Prev by Date: Re: Apple Leopard
- Next by Date: Re: bush/cheney , are they terrorists?
- Previous by thread: Re: Thicker Than Water
- Next by thread: Re: Thicker Than Water
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|