Here are the opening paragraphs of an article written by Steph Solis for USA Today:
“California suffered one of its driest years in 2015. And last year the state hit its driest four-year period on record.
“But Donald Trump isn’t sold. The presumptive GOP nominee told supporters in Fresno, California, on Friday night that no such dry spell exists.
“Trump said state officials were simply denying water to Central Valley farmers to prioritize the Delta smelt, a native California fish nearing extinction—or as Trump called it, ‘a certain kind of three-inch fish.’
“’We’re going to solve your water problem. You have a water problem that is so insane. It is so ridiculous where they’re taking the water and shoving it out to sea,’ Trump told thousands of supporters at the campaign event.”
Soils’ complete article is available at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/28/donald-trump-tells-californians-there-no-drought/85082174/.
This goes beyond being against environmental protections, or even being a climate-change denier, or being, more broadly, anti-science or anti-intellectual. He is standing in the middle of one of the regions of California most affected by the extended drought and telling his audience that the drought itself is not the actual cause of their misery but, instead, that they are being duped and ruined by environmentalists.
Trump is presenting himself politically like one of the “rainmakers” who traveled from one farming community to another during the Dustbowl, promising through methods of divination to bring the rain back to the fields.
Worse, as close as I can tell, he seems to think that the water in California’s rivers flows like water from a garden hose and that someone simply needs to shut it off to prevent it from flowing seaward and then point the hose to wherever anyone needs water in the state. This is so ridiculously stupid on so many levels that it is not worth the effort to refute it. Nonetheless, it is probably worth noting that he seems to be assuming that no one along the rivers in which the smelt are swimming uses the water.
But if you are a die-hard Trump believer, you can believe him or you can believe your own eyes about the scope and severity of the drought that has affected California. These are photos from the last two years of some the state’s major reservoirs and lakes, before the winter rains raised the water levels in them to some degree. Whatever water those smelt are swimming in, I am fairly certain that it’s not enough to some anywhere close to refilling these basins:
Reblogged this on Ohio Politics.
This is more about Trump’s brazen pandering than his ignorance of and contempt for science (or, for that matter, mere “facts”), although of course it’s that too. California’s history could be told as a series of water wars, with the thirsty south trying to take from the less arid north and the urban coast battling the irrigation-happy central valley. Even before the drought, agricultural interests in the central valley were complaining that state and federal policies were depriving them of water so that the smelt could thrive. Of course, it’s not just the smelt but the salmon too and, indeed, the entire California fishing industry, not to mention the San Francisco bay and the water needs of coastal cities like, well, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, etc., where the great majority of the state’s citizens live (and vote). Interestingly enough, agriculture uses 80% of the state’s water and the growth of urban sprawl in the Santa Clara Valley (now known as Silicon Valley), which replaced thirsty vineyards and orchards, actually reduced water use there (even if some might be used to cool giant “server farms”).
But the real battle — and here we get to the heart of Trump’s villainy — is not about environment, region, fish, or crops but about class. For as the drought worsened, wealthy corporate agribusiness drilled ever deeper wells, often slanting the bore to invade the land of less privileged neighbors, with disastrous consequences for the rural poor and working class. This incredibly powerful August 2015 article by Sasha Abramsky tells this chilling story well: http://www.thenation.com/article/welcome-to-fairmead-california-where-you-have-to-walk-a-mile-for-a-sip-of-water/ In short, when Trump tells people there is no drought, is real aim is to let agribusiness off the hook.
And if that isn’t enough there’s this: “So much water has been pumped out of the ground that vast areas of the Central Valley are sinking, destroying millions of dollars in infrastructure in the gradual collapse.” (see http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/californias-central-valley-is-sinking-and-the-drought-forces-farmers-to-ponder-the-abyss/) In fact, according to NASA, the rate of sinkage is now two inches every month (see https://weather.com/science/environment/news/california-central-valley-drought-sinking-land!
But it’s important to note that Trump’s denialism is nothing new for the Republican party, which has cynically sought to retain influence in the central valley, the final portion of the state that has not become overwhelmingly Democratic, by pandering in this fashion for some time. Take, for example, this nonsense from the Republican-led House Committee on Natural Resources, entitled “The Man-Made California Drought”: http://naturalresources.house.gov/drought/
It’s enough to boggle the mind!
Hank, your comment is very informative–in fact, illuminating for those of us who have only a passing knowledge of the “water wars” in California. (I think that my awareness may have stemmed initially from watching the film Chinatown.) And I have no doubt that, despite all of his proclamations to the contrary, Trump is not only very aware of corporate interests but also very adept at giving them a populist slant that makes ordinary people think that he is speaking for them when I doubt that he actually has any conception of or interest in what their interests really are. So it is a mistake to underestimate his political savvy.
But, all of that being said, I think that so many of his statements demonstrate a terrifyingly superficial knowledge of complex issues, that it is also a mistake to overestimate his intelligence or to believe that his has given much if any substantive thought to a great deal of the things that come out of his mouth. That is, I don’t think that he simply uses conspiracy theories and Internet rumors to political advantage; I think that he actually believes a great deal of it. Thus, it may be very true that this reference to water being diverted from the farms of the Central Valley simply to preserve a species of smelt serves the interests of agribusiness, and it may also be true that before visiting that part of the state, Trump did a quick search for articles on the drought on Alex Jones’ Infowars site or on some of the other dozen to two dozen Far Right sites devoted primarily, if not entirely, to conspiracy theories. I am pretty certain that Trump has them all bookmarked.
I am not a trump supporter. Ag does not use 80% of the water in California. In an average year the state receives about 200 million acre feet of water in the form of rain & snow and most of this soaks into the ground, evaporates or is used by native vegetation. This leaves about 82 million acre feet of water that can be managed. 48% goes to environmental use such as instream flows, wild and scenic river flows, required Delta outflow and managed wetlands. 41% is used by agriculture and 9% by cities and industry. The 80% agriculture use figure is only true when no environmental use is considered in the math only agriculture and cities are considered.
Right or wrong over the last few years all kinds of flyway bird habitat received water even though during a drought many would have dried up.
Vineyards are not considered a thirsty crop – ask a farmer.
CCW
SUMMARY of TRENDS (key to understanding the logic why there in NO drought in California)
“precipitation” ~ DOWN
“groundwater (reserves)” ~ DOWN
“water use” ~ UP
“population” ~ UP
“infrastructure” ~ DOWN
“economy/wages (for majority)” ~ DOWN
“political bullshit” ~ UP
http://piggington.com/ucsd_econ_roundtable
If one likes to parse terms, Trump is not lying here. Lying requires a deliberate attempt at deception. He is peddling bullshit. For your viewing pleasure, On Bullshit:
This video is terrific.
I don’t think, however, that I or Hank Reichman in his comment used the word “lie.”
In my reply to Hank’s comment, I was trying to distinguish my main point from his by suggesting that some of what Trump does is driven not so much by ideology or pandering to political interests as by his idiosyncratic personal obsessions and his surface knowledge of many important issues.
But, in terms of the argument presented in the video, I think that both Hank and I are describing more what would fall under Harry Frankfurt’s definition of “bullshit” than his definition of “lying.”