California pharmacists, prepared to lose everything?

[MatCauthon]

Just a quick question for pharmacists and pharmacy students in California: Have you seriously considered that the ongoing drought will force you to relocate?

The situation currently looks pretty dire. Without a huge breakthrough in water technology it looks like California and other areas such as Las Vegas will not be able to support their populations. Even more troublesome is that this ecological catastrophe could happen very soon.

Do you guys have a backup plan? This drought may have major ramifications on the whole country. Indeed I have already met a few pharmacists who have relocated from California for this very reason. They were extremely concerned that wouldn't be able to sell their house or find a job so the jumped ship while they still had time.

How many are prepared to do this? There may not be much time left from what I have read.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BMBiology]

Luckily we are rich! We can build a pipeline from Alaska and drain the water from their lakes!

 

[trailerpark]

I live close to Lake Superior which holds 10% of the world's fresh water supply. Also, the cleanest of all the Great Lakes. I laugh at drought.

 

[xiphoid2010]

I live close to Lake Superior which holds 10% of the world's fresh water supply. Also, the cleanest of all the Great Lakes. I laugh at drought.

Why steal lake water from Michigan? Isn't global warming suppose to be melting the polar icecaps anyway? Isn't Cali big on recycling? I say let the tree huggers pipe that melting ice water down.

 

[confettiflyer]

. Indeed I have already met a few pharmacists who have relocated from California for this very reason.

Probably the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. It's like moving out of state because you wet your panties thinking about the next earthquake.

They moved for other compelling reasons and didn't want to admit it (ie California too expensive, high taxes, can't find a job, etc...)

Few reasons:

1) water IS the history of California, we've been battling out water right since we were admitted into the Union. This isn't new. The droughts in the early 90's were worse. Then guess what? We got flooded out in the late 90's (El Niño!). Drought cycles are normal, it makes for great wine, and we deal with it.....

2) agriculture makes up 80% of water use in the state. Guess who gets the rump end of things when there's no water? I'll let you guess....it's not the yuppies in San Francisco or biotech companies making Herceptin and Cubicin that will go thirsty (for a few reasons I can expand upon later).

Consequence? Another dust bowl? Maybe. Expensive fruits and vegetables because of fewer crops? Definitely. Last I checked, though...we're pharmacists and not migrant workers.

3) We have the money to import water...water rates here are dirt cheap. There's a provision in state law that caps water rates (too long to discuss in depth) such that innovations can't be paid up front (unless it's a municipal bond). There's talk of changing that regulation. Given the value of agriculture here and its impact nationwide.

4) my speculation here....but if push ever comes to shove, we will take other states' water by force. Whether that's cutting off outflows into the Gulf of Mexico or tapping into Oregon...California is just too damn important, which is a supremely Californian thing to say.


My background FYI: I studied California water rights and history extensively as an undergrad (it was my pretty much my 2nd degree), so ask me anything water.

 

[BMBiology]

My background FYI: I studied California water rights and history extensively as an undergrad (it was my pretty much my 2nd degree), so ask me anything water.

That's a great pick up line. Have you ever used it?

 

[confettiflyer]

That's a great pick up line. Have you ever used it?

Never needed to

 

[BenJammin]

My local target has a lot of bottled water for sale so I'm not worried.

 

[socalpharm86]

I live close to Lake Superior which holds 10% of the world's fresh water supply. Also, the cleanest of all the Great Lakes. I laugh at drought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

 

[BidingMyTime]

Eh, I'm extremely risk-averse, but if I lived in CA, I can't imagine moving due to concerns over water shortages. ConfettiFlyer explained it well, there are many reasons why I don't think the state will up and become a ghost town. Water prices may go up, lawns maybe a thing of that past, but I think CA will continue on as it currently is.

 

[confettiflyer]

man my grammar is horrible when i type on my phone, but yes...look at cities like Las Vegas and states like Arizona/New Mexico that are dependent on interstate transfers of water for their existence. Those are the cities/states that would face a higher risk of desertification if this climate change thing pans out as described.

Not only are they dependent on water imports, they don't have access to the ocean. Desalinization is expensive, but California has 3,427 miles of coastline, if push came to shove, people will pay for water, you'll just lose agriculture in the process because the costs will exceed what the market will bear for your product. My speculation: you'd see mass federal subsidies to farmers for water because of the strategic importance of food production (see: Nixon years).

Not only that, but the Northern part of the state routinely gets the bulk of the rain and snow pack, and existing infrastructure (SWP) is in place to transfer water to the water districts of So-Cal.

Oh and if this is all Greek to everyone else, the wiki entry is actually a pretty decent primer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California

 

[confettiflyer]

Oh and as an addendum (and because I got bored and dug up my old Hutchins law book on the issue), a portion of the water laws in use are continued from Mexican and Spanish rule via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848). Remember.... California is the successor territory/state of Alta California and a part of the treaty guaranteed that Mexican/Spanish property rights continued when the United States acquired the territory (Alta California -> Mexican Cession -> California).

(Guadalupe Hidalgo actually continues to be used in litigation today, specifically with respect to coastal access, but that's another story).

Part of this is the irrevocable water rights given to the successors of the Pueblo of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Jose. By treaty, these downstream municipalities have exclusive water rights flowing through them, even at the expense of anyone upstream. These rights attach from the source to the mouth and are superior to all other rights.

If there was any question as to what the priorities are should water become scarce, this is pretty much the answer.

Thank you, Spain!

 

[maria1oh]

Last decade the big crisis in California was not building enough power plants for electricity.

 

[297point1]

4) my speculation here....but if push ever comes to shove, we will take other states' water by force. Whether that's cutting off outflows into the Gulf of Mexico or tapping into Oregon...California is just too damn important, which is a supremely Californian thing to say.

Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona: you have been warned! Arm your citizenry and start guarding those reservoirs immediately.

 

[confettiflyer]

Last decade the big crisis in California was not building enough power plants for electricity.

Nope. That was an artificial manipulation by a now-bankrupt energy company. Review your history.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I can't wait until the entire state West of I-5 floats into the sea and all of a sudden the poor people in Bakersfield have million dollar beachfront property.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

California is just too damn important, which is a supremely Californian thing to say.

So are Californians the new Texans or something?

 

[BMBiology]

I can't wait until the entire state West of I-5 floats into the sea and all of a sudden the poor people in Bakersfield have million dollar beachfront property.

Or fall into the ocean.

 

[confettiflyer]

So are Californians the new Texans or something?

Pfffff....we've always thought highly of ourselves and think it's kind of cute when non-Californians make criticisms. Texas ain't got nothin' on us with that.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Pfffff....we've always thought highly of ourselves and think it's kind of cute when non-Californians make criticisms. Texas ain't got nothin' on us with that.

The Megalopolis is still the economic and political epicenter of the US, though. And California does have its problems. Like electing movie stars for governor. And traffic. And Oakland.

 

[rxglasshalffull]

okay guys, lets stop talking about the water, what are your thoughts on earthquakes in california?

 

[rxglasshalffull]

as a former northeast resident, i do miss it from time to time. i miss the trees......and cheaper housing.
however coastal socal has been a littttttle bit humid in the past few days and i guess i kind of relived the humidity on the east coast, it was yesterday that i tried to take my lunch break outside and was faced with humidity that i realized, i really wouldnt want to live anywhere else.

 

[Silent Cool]

Pfffff....we've always thought highly of ourselves and think it's kind of cute when non-Californians make criticisms. Texas ain't got nothin' on us with that.

Is that why Toyota is moving a huge chunk of its workforce from Torrance, CA to Plano, TX? Or why Exxon Mobil is moving its headquarters to Houston, TX? Or why Apple Computer is building a gigantic plant in Austin, Tx?

Just wondering....

 

[anewmanx]

For those who have lived in California a good bit of time, I'm curious about something...

Has the culture changed significantly with the rapid rise in Hispanic population?

*note* before someone goes and accuses me of racism, my wife and daughter are from Costa Rica (Central America.) I'm just curious how the canvas has changed from the 90's.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I didn't know there was some weird Texas vs California thing on.

Personally, I'd rather live in Austin, TX than anywhere in California. Though I'd rather live anywhere in California than anywhere in Texas that isn't Austin/San Antone

If I had to rate **** it would be like:
1) Toronto
2) Portland
3) DC/Balmer/Philly/Jersey/NYC/Providence/Boston
4) Austin/San Antonio
5) Yinzerville just because I could go to WVU games
6) Seattle
7) Somewhere between Santa Clara and San Mateo.
....
....
1045) Anywhere else in Texas

 

[confettiflyer]

The Megalopolis is still the economic and political epicenter of the US, though. And California does have its problems. Like electing movie stars for governor. And traffic. And Oakland.

True on the Megalopolis. And Governator was awesome, beat that cold fish Gray Davis he replaced....and was probably a better choice than the porn star that also ran.

Oakland? You mean Cokeland? Meh, the east coast has Camden.

Don't worry....Postmates just set up shop in Oakland, you can pretty much be guaranteed that place will be gentrified to high hell in the coming years.

Traffic? You know what was cute? Seeing non-Californians complain about a traffic jam. It was like seeing all those east coasters freak out about that little shaker a few years ago.

 

[confettiflyer]

I didn't know there was some weird Texas vs California thing on.

Personally, I'd rather live in Austin, TX than anywhere in California. Though I'd rather live anywhere in California than anywhere in Texas that isn't Austin/San Antone

If I had to rate **** it would be like:
1) Toronto
2) Portland
3) DC/Balmer/Philly/Jersey/NYC/Providence/Boston
4) Austin/San Antonio
5) Yinzerville just because I could go to WVU games
6) Seattle
7) Somewhere between Santa Clara and San Mateo.
....
....
1045) Anywhere else in Texas

Okay I like this list. Yeah, TX Gov. Perry swung into California to try to swipe away businesses. I think he managed to steal away a battery factory or something.

 

[confettiflyer]

okay guys, lets stop talking about the water, what are your thoughts on earthquakes in california?

**** happens, hope your building is up to code.

seriously why are people so damn scared of quakes? More people die from hot weather, dogs, and lightning strikes. Sheesh.

 

[confettiflyer]

Is that why Toyota is moving a huge chunk of its workforce from Torrance, CA to Plano, TX? Or why Exxon Mobil is moving its headquarters to Houston, TX? Or why Apple Computer is building a gigantic plant in Austin, Tx?

Just wondering....

I was referring to attitude, not economics. California is a lot snobbier than Texas.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Traffic? You know what was cute? Seeing non-Californians complain about a traffic jam.

Yeah. Well, I don't know why you are bragging about it. California's road infrastructure is horrible.

It was like seeing all those east coasters freak out about that little shaker a few years ago.

Nobody "freaked." We thought it was fun. I slept through it.

 

[confettiflyer]

Yeah. Well, I don't know why you are bragging about it. California's road infrastructure is horrible.

Badge of honor.

Nobody "freaked." We thought it was fun. I slept through it.

2 in the afternoon? People in Philly freaked, oh it was freaking hillarious.

 

[confettiflyer]

And more proof.... California is home to 6 of the 10 snobbiest cities in America!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-America-revealed-California-claims-them.html

 

[genesis09]

People in the Great Lakes region were worried about people in the west stealing great lakes water. So, it was made illegal in all the great lake states and Canadian provinces to sell Great Lake's water outside of the basin without getting approval from all the aforementioned states and provinces. This is law by a combination of local state law, federal law, and treaty.

 

[297point1]

I didn't know there was some weird Texas vs California thing on.

Personally, I'd rather live in Austin, TX than anywhere in California. Though I'd rather live anywhere in California than anywhere in Texas that isn't Austin/San Antone

If I had to rate **** it would be like:
1) Toronto
2) Portland
3) DC/Balmer/Philly/Jersey/NYC/Providence/Boston
4) Austin/San Antonio
5) Yinzerville just because I could go to WVU games
6) Seattle
7) Somewhere between Santa Clara and San Mateo.
....
....
1045) Anywhere else in Texas

This is a good list...but I reckon it is missing both Chicago and Denver/Boulder.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

This is a good list...but I reckon it is missing both Chicago and Denver/Boulder.

Chicago is meh to me, but I can see how people like it.

I've never actually been to Denver. It seems like it might be nice. With the 300 days of sunshine and marijuana shops.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

2 in the afternoon? People in Philly freaked, oh it was freaking hillarious.

Unless they thought a bomb went off a few blocks away or something, I don't see why. I'm told it felt like a Septa train was going by the house.

 

[BenJammin]

Pfffff....we've always thought highly of ourselves and think it's kind of cute when non-Californians make criticisms. Texas ain't got nothin' on us with that.

I can purchase and possess a machine gun in Texas. You can't do that in California! Checkmate.

 

[xiphoid2010]

I wasn't born or raised in Texas. Ever since I came to the US as a boy, with my family or by myself have lived in Nebraska, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersy, Ohio and Texas. But I like Texas the most and gladly call it my home. Down to earth people, non socialist government, a good economy for an honest and affordable living. My wife and I can use the taxes or mortgage we saved to visit California several times a year if we wanted (but we rather fly to China or tour Europe or the rest of the world with it instead).

 

[confettiflyer]

I can purchase and possess a machine gun in Texas. You can't do that in California! Checkmate.

We have better gun control laws. Neener neee.

 

[anewmanx]

Yup, because obviously criminals always respect the law.

 

[BenJammin]

We live in a nanny state where we're not allowed to protect our family or property. Neener neee.

FTFY. As the list of approved weapons you can purchase in California gets smaller and smaller....

 

[confettiflyer]

FTFY. As the list of approved weapons you can purchase in California gets smaller and smaller....

I don't see a problem here. ::

 

[BidingMyTime]

I don't see a problem here. ::

well, as JAFX sarcastically said "because criminals always respect the law." They don't, and that is why its a problem that non-criminals can't buy weapons to defend themselves against the criminals.

Part of this is the irrevocable water rights given to the successors of the Pueblo of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Jose. By treaty, these downstream municipalities have exclusive water rights flowing through them, even at the expense of anyone upstream. These rights attach from the source to the mouth and are superior to all other rights.
If there was any question as to what the priorities are should water become scarce, this is pretty much the answer.
Thank you, Spain!

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Now that was a good laugh. You aren't a lawyer (I'm not either), so you wouldn't be aware (but I am) that there have been court decisions saying that "irrevocable" in legal documents really means 40 years. Which is really a bit more sad than funny. Either way, sad or funny, no "irrevocable" language is going to legally protect these downstream municipalities keeping all the water to yourself.

I still am not concerned that there will be a water shortage serious enough in CA to turn it into a ghost town, but there is no question that if matters get serious enough, the downstate municipalities will indeed be sharing with others. Irrevocable. Hahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[confettiflyer]

well, as JAFX sarcastically said "because criminals always respect the law." They don't, and that is why its a problem that non-criminals can't buy weapons to defend themselves against the criminals.



hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Now that was a good laugh. You aren't a lawyer (I'm not either), so you wouldn't be aware (but I am) that there have been court decisions saying that "irrevocable" in legal documents really means 40 years. Which is really a bit more sad than funny. Either way, sad or funny, no "irrevocable" language is going to legally protect these downstream municipalities keeping all the water to yourself.

I still am not concerned that there will be a water shortage serious enough in CA to turn it into a ghost town, but there is no question that if matters get serious enough, the downstate municipalities will indeed be sharing with others. Irrevocable. Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Link me to the case that defined pueblo rights at 40yrs, curious.

 

[confettiflyer]

Okay I just reread the cases and subsequent decisions...yeah you don't really know what you're talking about.

Superiority of pueblo water rights remains in effect as a result of the Treaty. It is current law and practice. I think you made that 40 year rule up.

 

[confettiflyer]

The case is Lux v. Haggin (1886)

http://wrri.nmsu.edu/publish/watcon/proc4/Hutchins.pdf

 

[confettiflyer]

no "irrevocable" language is going to legally protect these downstream municipalities keeping all the water to yourself.

Okay now that I'm awake, here's what actually happened the last time there was a drought (bold and underlined emphasis is mine):

"Actually, the first California decision respecting what came to be known as the pueblo water right was rendered in Feliz v. Los Angeles, in 1881. Here the contest was between upstream riparian owners and the City of Los Angeles. From the founding of the Pueblo of Los Angeles in 1781, a century earlier, said the supreme court, the right to all the waters of Los Angeles River had been claimed by the pueblo and by the successor city; that right had been recognized by all owners of land on the stream; under a recognition and acknowledgement of that right, the ditches of plaintiffs' grantors had been dug; and by the permission and license of the municipal authorities, plaintiffs thereafter used water from the river.

This use was continued until a water shortage deprived the inhabitants of the city of water that they needed, whereupon -- two or three years preceding the action -- agents of the city closed plaintiffs' headgates. Can plaintiffs now assert a claim of right adverse to the city, asked the court? "We think not." Statutes of the California legislature were cited to the effect that the city had succeeded to all the rights of the former pueblo. But, said the court, "We have not examined the rights of the defendant (City of Los Angeles) as they existed under the Spanish and Mexican laws, applicable to pueblos, for the findings in this case render such examination unnecessary." The supreme court specifically held that to the extent of the needs of the inhabitants, the city had the paramount right to the use of the waters of the Los Angeles River, and the further long exercised and recognized right to manage and control the waters for such purposes."

Hutchins, page 3


EDIT: To further answer the question posed, the alleged 40 year limit is not valid. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was upheld in 1859, and its validity in property rights cases (like the above) was invoked and affirmed as recently as 2014 (Friends of Martin's Beach v. Martin's Beach 1, LLC, San Mateo County Civil Case #CIV517634).

 

[anewmanx]

I don't see a problem here. ::

They probably won't let you do it in Cali, but in some states you can do a walk through of a max security 23hr detention block and talk to the inmates... If you know a guard that works there.

One conversation with one of those animals and you would realize that criminals are not marginalized, misunderstood, or disadvantages. Some people are just lower forms of life, willing to take your life for a hot sandwich or for fun. There is a reason there happens to be no treatment or medication for ASPD (psychopathy,) they aren't sick; they were born to be that way, they were born predatory alpha monsters.

After truly getting to hear how one of them thinks, you may consider self defense more important. Working with them as a correctional officer changed me.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[BidingMyTime]

Link me to the case that defined pueblo rights at 40yrs, curious.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I wasn't referring specifically to CA water right cases, I was referring to rulings concerning a different type of property usage in a different state where courts had determined & upheld that the language "irrevocable" means 40 years. Things change, and I do believe if a severe drought happened, that there would be lawsuits in CA revisiting the term "irrevocable", and there are other court cases (even if they had originated in other states) that could be used as precedent in deciding that "irrevocable" really doesn't mean "irrevocable". It is folly to think that CA would always uphold a ruling from the 1700's , things change and the way courts interpret matters change (often, though not always, for the better)

 

[BanBidil]

Just a quick question for pharmacists and pharmacy students in California: Have you seriously considered that the ongoing drought will force you to relocate?

The situation currently looks pretty dire. Without a huge breakthrough in water technology it looks like California and other areas such as Las Vegas will not be able to support their populations. Even more troublesome is that this ecological catastrophe could happen very soon.

Do you guys have a backup plan? This drought may have major ramifications on the whole country. Indeed I have already met a few pharmacists who have relocated from California for this very reason. They were extremely concerned that wouldn't be able to sell their house or find a job so the jumped ship while they still had time.

How many are prepared to do this? There may not be much time left from what I have read.

Drought? What drought? Our golf courses and resorts are fully functioning and I can still choose from 50 different brands of bottled water at 7-11 last time I checked.