Trump's Plan to Save the Forests

a reply to: jlafleur02

And what is your research, what Trump tells you? Do you know about this big valve that he talks about that diverts water into the ocean? If you want, you may consider my asking you this question as part of my research into this issue. Does this valve have a name, if so do you know where it is.

My other attempts at research into Trump's comments lead to the same talking points as were linked in the OP. There were many which of course could just be the echo chamber repeating and repeating his comments. However in trying to find any news outlets that normally would support Trump I could find none. No Fox, no NY Post, no Washington Times, no OAN or any other. Do you know of any available coverage that repudiates this interpretation of his comments. I ask in the spirit of research as you sound as if you are one in favor of it. So help me out here can you? Can you point to where these quoted comments were taken out of context?

a reply to: ITSALIVE

Are you on topic here? Maybe so so let's give it a try.

The question in the OP was ''who are they'' they being the people Trump says who are saying what he hears. He did not mention ''experts'' saying ,just they say.

You also say that ''they say'' is ok for CNN. I wouldn't know as I seldom pay attention to CNN. But talk about CNN verges on thread drift so I will veer back to the topic after pointing out the whataboutism that was interjected into our conversation.

Biden? The OP did not mention Biden or raise the question of how to correctly deal with saving the forests from fire. What the OP did do was to question and I admit lampoon the process that Trump was putting forth to deal with these fires. Whataboutism is not on topic for this discussion.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Yep, the segment on dampening forests was almost verbatim what what was reported. The rest of that water comments were familiar but for one part. He mentions a ''big valve'' up there that keeps water from coming south and instead pumps that water into the ocean. I have never heard of this before. Does this valve have a name? If so, where is it?

I don't know. Perhaps try performing a keyword search with the words 'California water project Newsome vetoes Trump' or something like that. I seem to remember reading something about it a few years back.

originally posted by: bastion
It makes sense to dump water on forrests to prevent a fire spreding but surely there's no water volume in the US to conduct regular waterings of forrests (using back of a fag packet maths).

The cost would be enormous but would be incredibly effective in preventing fires - on the downside it's completely unsustainable and impracticle and would wreak havoc on the water table or any ecosystem in place (I don't believe in ecosytems)

Not really. Vast amounts of water accumulate on the Sierra Nevada mountain range and is not very well managed by the state of California and various counties. Trump is not exaggerating when he relates legislators explaining to him that the drought there is man made. It's all very horribly mismanaged, though I would imagine the hydroelectric power company owners would disagree with me. They make lots of money by strategically mismanaging that water.

Compare California's geography and water management with Oklahoma's. Oklahoma has zero snowpack, and few rivers, but is very thoughtfully managed, and that state is not water poor, though it certainly would be in dry years if not for the superb water management that Oklahoma has created for themselves.

There is enough water to do plenty of watering, and if you study the Gujarat traditional method of water management, this could probably be applied to California's mountainsides in novel fashion to create irrigating water flows down the mountainside that would dampen large swathes of forest. It probably used to naturally flow in these sorts of ways, and was constrained sometime in the last century by foresters.

Spreading water around like this can aid cloud formation and boost annual rainfall, as well as helping to recharge aquifers. Probably a lot more sustainable than it would appear at first glance.

a reply to: bastion

Do some reading about Owens Lake sometime. LA owns 90% of Inyo county, so they own the water rights. They can legally pipe all that water down to LA, and leave Inyo county as dry as it is.

A judge has ordered them to restore the wetlands that they long ago destroyed, and they are veeerrrry sloooowwwwlllly doing so. Meanwhile the dry lake bed constantly throws up dust which blows over to nearby towns, causing health problems to the local residents. There are weird dust abatement projects, bringing in gravel to cover up the dust beds, and other such idiocy, millions spent year to year.

All they would have to do is let the lake refill and the problem would go away. LA county will avoid doing so as long as possible though, because they don't want to lose any of that water they're busily legally stealing to evaporation and absorption. Owens lake covers a very large area, but is very shallow, so to be fair, those losses are not negligible.

It's probably half full right now due to the heavy rainfall years the state has gotten, but watch, they'll drain it again because they're a bunch of greedy dumbasses.

To call it more precisely, I'd speculate that there are a few people that make a lot of money from that legally stolen water, and they wouldn't want their large paychecks to be a little bit smaller. To preserve those paychecks, they're willing to frag off the ecology, so it would seem.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

As you suggested, I re-did my search and what I found was that indeed Newsom did prevent a Trump order. Trump wanted to loosen up water restrictions and pipe watereto the central valley for agriculture. There were environmental issues over habitats for fish that would be endangered.

However I did find this

www.kpbs.org...

As I understand this Newsom has a plan to build a tunnel to move that water from the northern mountain communities and pipe it into the canals that would carry it onward.. He also is pushing a bill that would expedite the passage of bills to do so and to quicken the process of getting this done.

He has met with strong pushback from those counties that do not want to have their own ecosystems degraded, which is their fear.

So as Trump has used Newsom as a hindrance to making Trumps ideas work, Newsom already has those plans being pushed though the California legislature.

NOwhere did I find any info on water being diverted into the Pacific.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

NOwhere did I find any info on water being diverted into the Pacific.

From the article you linked:

But the Delta tunnel has strong opposition among the five counties that comprise the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta region. They fear construction of the 45-mile (72 kilometer) underground tunnel directly connecting the Sacramento River to the California Aqueduct will destroy valuable farmland and deny threatened species of fish like the Delta smelt and winter-run Chinook salmon the river water they need to survive.

If I remember correctly, "the river water they need to survive" is river water allowed to flow out to sea, so that would be the water "diverted into the Pacific". It is contended that the Delta Smelt and apparently, winter-run Chinook Salmon need this to thrive.

Draining lakes is another point of environmental contention. Owens lake as I've mentioned, and Mono lake as well. It's usually a tug of war between environmentalist perspectives with this California water stuff. There are probably others who would argue just as strongly against most if not all that I have proposed for varying reasons, not all of them greed based. That's California environmental politics for you.

Since the beginning of January, a series of atmospheric rivers has disgorged trillions of gallons of much-needed moisture across drought-stricken California, but only a small fraction of that water has so far made it into storage. In the delta — the heart of the state’s vast water system — nearly 95% of incoming water has flowed into the Pacific Ocean, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Their reasoning.

“There are reasons that there are restrictions on pumping, and each of them is founded in some way, shape or form on trying to conserve habitat for listed species,” said Jeffrey Mount, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California.

Source

It looks like they are dumping water to save the delta smelt....but yes the water is indeed being sent out to sea

Trump's suggestion, without any backup evidence of success, won't be needed because the Biden-Harris Administration and the experts in this field have it well in hand.

The Commission’s recommendations were informed by the Department of the Interior’s “Five-Year Monitoring, Maintenance, and Treatment Plan,” which provides a roadmap for addressing wildfire risk on Department of the Interior-managed and Tribal lands. They were also informed by USDA Forest Service’s “Confronting the Wildfire Crisis” strategy, which aims to treat 20 million acres of national forests and grasslands and 30 million acres of state, local, Tribal and private lands over the next 10 years to reduce wildfire risk where it matters most. These plans help facilitate the collaborative work between the two Departments. In total, President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act include over $7 billion in funding across the interagency to enhance our ability to mitigate and respond to wildfires.

The Commission’s work builds on existing interagency federal efforts, such as the Wildland Fire Leadership Council and the White House Wildfire Resilience Interagency Working Group. The Biden-Harris administration will continue to pursue an all-of-government approach to wildfire risk reduction and resilience.

www.usda.gov...#:~:text=The%20Biden%2DHarris%20Administ ration%20is,restore%20fire%2Dadapted%20ecosystems%2C%20while

originally posted by: quintessentone
... the Biden-Harris Administration and the experts in this field have it well in hand.

Obviously they don't. Just more bureaucracy.
Forest management in this country sucks.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Amazing posts, thanks for all the info and leads - I'll certainly take your word for it as I'm from the UK and completely ignorant on the subject but your posts are some of the highest quality info I've seen on ATS.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
www.businessinsider.com...

''Trump suggested that the Golden State's rougly 33 million acres of forest should be kept damp while speaking at a California Republicans' convention in Anaheim on Friday.''

So, just more disingenuousness from you Terry...

I actually watched the clip, He mostly talked about forest/land management - you know, cleaning up the dead trees and undergrowth - again, you know, what they used to do before radical leftist wingnuts took over.

His comment about water was mostly just an afterthought to all of that.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
www.businessinsider.com...

''Trump suggested that the Golden State's rougly 33 million acres of forest should be kept damp while speaking at a California Republicans' convention in Anaheim on Friday.''

So, just more disingenuousness from you Terry...

I actually watched the clip, He mostly talked about forest/land management - you know, cleaning up the dead trees and undergrowth - again, you know, what they used to do before radical leftist wingnuts took over.

His comment about water was mostly just an afterthought to all of that.

You people are just like Biden supporters who will make themselves look silly with the excuses they come up with to defend their guy for saying something stupid.

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog
a reply to: tanstaafl
You people are just like Biden supporters who will make themselves look silly with the excuses they come up with to defend their guy for saying something stupid.

So, you totally missed the facts already presented proving that what he was talking about - albeit in a very simplistic way, probably so people like you could understand (if you actually took the time to listen) - is actually a very doable and effective process.

Got it.

a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

No one here is defending Biden.

Why not address the issue that Trump has no grip on reality.

What is concerning is 2024 we will likely have 2 candidates showing significant signs of dementia.

Trump is just as incoherent as Biden, sometimes much worse.

Like Trump's idea of nuking hurricanes to weaken them, simply 'watering forests and woodlands is makes no sense. Whike not as insane as his nuke the hurricane idea, ut shows how out of touch of reality the man is.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

No one here is defending Biden.

Why not address the issue that Trump has no grip on reality.

What is concerning is 2024 we will likely have 2 candidates showing significant signs of dementia.

Trump is just as incoherent as Biden, sometimes much worse.

Like Trump's idea of nuking hurricanes to weaken them, simply 'watering forests and woodlands is makes no sense. Whike not as insane as his nuke the hurricane idea, ut shows how out of touch of reality the man is.

I never said anyone is defending Biden here, I’m only bringing up that Trump supporters are acting the same way they are when they make silly excuses instead of being honest.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Couldn't he just use a sharpie to extend some rivers on a map?

We're talking about Trump, not O'Biden - keep up!

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Remember he also did not understand why we could not "nuke hurricanes"

While I do think it would be interesting to see what a powerful(Bikini H-bomb or even Tsar bomba) would do to the eye of the storm, the fallout from the radiation would be a nightmare as the storm would literally be radioactive.

Did he actually mean a nuclear bomb? Or just one of those non-nuclear blockbuster bombs. I highly doubt he literally meant nuclear. And as you said, it is an interesting idea, and I'm not completely convinced it couldn't work under certain circumstances - but yeah, I'm a simply layman, like him, so feel free to start calling me names too.

Yet we have so many who think that man is incredibly smart which gives us an idea of where the intellect level is.

We just understand the difference between street smarts and book smarts - and we also know that street smarts very often is much more valuable - and in many cases less error prone - than book smarts.

It is people with long strings of letters after their names that have gotten us to where we are now, after all.

originally posted by: spacedoubt
He’s not even the smartest guy in the room when he is alone.

However, how many Trump tears would it take?
A deluge is forthcoming.

Your TDS is truly a sad, sad sight to behold.

Get help my friend.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

no matter what stupid idea he comes up with, no matter how blatant of a crime he commits, ect. his followers will make excuse after excuse to defend him.

We are just able to recognize the sometimes simplistic/lay language he uses for what it is - a way to hopefully make it understandable to those whose eyes would gloss over were he to use the often intentionally convoluted scientific language.

TDS sufferers are only able to wail at the sky about 'how stupid' he is, without realizing it is they themselves that are engaging in 'the stupid'.

Thank you! I tried to find the full speech when I first posted after actually reading the OP link and saw that he mostly talked about forest management, and the water stuff was almost an afterthought.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Looks like this is the speech. I assume the statements being discussed are in here somewhere.
www.youtube.com...

Edit to add:
Looks like he starts speaking about water at the 20 minute mark or so, which transitions into speaking about forest management. The parts of the speech that were quoted appear to be at about the 32 minute mark, and by about the 36 minute mark his speech moves on to other issues.

According to his words in the speech, all of the water infrastructure is and was already in place while Trump was president, but was held up by Newsome not signing the agreement. Anyhow, lots more there than was quoted in the articles.