Its everybody's fault but the farmer's.dbackjon wrote:travelinman67 wrote:Great article by an Ag insider on the CA water problem. Long read, but absolutely accurate.
https://medium.com/p/f5b704d30353
Written exactly like a greedy farmer that wants unlimited, subsidized water for himself to make his millions, but can't fathom contributing to anything else.
Even his billion dollar "solutions" would be funded by the US Taxpayers - at no cost to him.
Spoken like a true communist...houndawg wrote:
Repeat after me: "Privatize the profits and socialize the risks."
travelinman67 wrote:Spoken like a true communist...houndawg wrote:
Repeat after me: "Privatize the profits and socialize the risks."
Hang in there, Dawg...they're developing new promising Alzheimer's treatments every day.houndawg wrote:travelinman67 wrote:
Spoken like a true communist...
That's no way to talk about wall st., big oil, and corporate farmers, "toejam67".
NO. Stop the nonsense.travelinman67 wrote:You didn't read the article, Jackass. Those solutions benefit EVERYONE, including the environment.dbackjon wrote:
Written exactly like a greedy farmer that wants unlimited, subsidized water for himself to make his millions, but can't fathom contributing to anything else.
Even his billion dollar "solutions" would be funded by the US Taxpayers - at no cost to him.
Stop wasting my time, Klam.
Urban consumers are required to reduce consumption 20-30% or face fines. Most urban consumers rates have increased at least 50% since 2009.Cluck U wrote:NO. Stop the nonsense.travelinman67 wrote:
You didn't read the article, Jackass. Those solutions benefit EVERYONE, including the environment.
Stop wasting my time, Klam.
It doesn't benefit EVERYONE...not even close.
If you want to store water, then build, and pay for, the damn underground storage units yourself. Follow regulations so that it doesn't negatively impact the environment, and then you can use whatever water you store. Charge anyone money if you want to sell them your water.
but don't use that stupid, tired line that a taxpayer funded boondoggle would benefit everyone. It won't. And it certainly won't benefit everyone equally, or even close to the portion of taxes that they will pay.
Want it? Build it yourself...at your expense...and while not impacting everyone else.
Music to my ears..travelinman67 wrote:Urban consumers are required to reduce consumption 20-30% or face fines. Most urban consumers rates have increased at least 50% since 2009.Cluck U wrote:
NO. Stop the nonsense.
It doesn't benefit EVERYONE...not even close.
If you want to store water, then build, and pay for, the damn underground storage units yourself. Follow regulations so that it doesn't negatively impact the environment, and then you can use whatever water you store. Charge anyone money if you want to sell them your water.
but don't use that stupid, tired line that a taxpayer funded boondoggle would benefit everyone. It won't. And it certainly won't benefit everyone equally, or even close to the portion of taxes that they will pay.
Want it? Build it yourself...at your expense...and while not impacting everyone else.
CA is the largest ag producer in the U.S. Production declines in CA effect global prices. Many of CA's ag water districts have had their 2014 allotments REDUCED TO ZERO OR LESS THAN 20% than normal. Current 2014 loss estimates are in excess of $68 billion. There is no debate that these losses will result in price increases throughout the U.S.
Environmentally, increasing storage will provide a buffer to prevent aquatic damage during drought years. NRDC, the principal environmental advocate in the CA water battle, supports action to ensure flows during droughts.
Costs ARE factored into delivered rates, as well as bond sales. Those amortized cost are overwhelmingly mitigated by the damage prevented.
Most Californians remember the 1977 drought and the resulting environmental and economic damage, explaining why most Californians support this solution.
This is a simple problem with essentially two options:
Either increase/manage more storage, or allow irreversible environmental and economic damage to occur.
California is already straining under the hardships imposed by 35 years of anti-growth/power tug-of-war policies, while its population DOUBLED.
And BTW, a bipartisan commission this past month announced the commencement of EIR and necessary legidlation to begin construction of the "Sites" reservoir in upper central valley...the commission was headed by long time CA Democrat Congressman John Garamendi.
I posted that article primarily because it provided an excellent explanation of CA's water problem, NOT to provide fuel to initiate a Troll debate.
Bullshit.travelinman67 wrote:Urban consumers are required to reduce consumption 20-30% or face fines. Most urban consumers rates have increased at least 50% since 2009.Cluck U wrote:
NO. Stop the nonsense.
It doesn't benefit EVERYONE...not even close.
If you want to store water, then build, and pay for, the damn underground storage units yourself. Follow regulations so that it doesn't negatively impact the environment, and then you can use whatever water you store. Charge anyone money if you want to sell them your water.
but don't use that stupid, tired line that a taxpayer funded boondoggle would benefit everyone. It won't. And it certainly won't benefit everyone equally, or even close to the portion of taxes that they will pay.
Want it? Build it yourself...at your expense...and while not impacting everyone else.
CA is the largest ag producer in the U.S. Production declines in CA effect global prices. Many of CA's ag water districts have had their 2014 allotments REDUCED TO ZERO OR LESS THAN 20% than normal. Current 2014 loss estimates are in excess of $68 billion. There is no debate that these losses will result in price increases throughout the U.S.
Environmentally, increasing storage will provide a buffer to prevent aquatic damage during drought years. NRDC, the principal environmental advocate in the CA water battle, supports action to ensure flows during droughts.
Costs ARE factored into delivered rates, as well as bond sales. Those amortized cost are overwhelmingly mitigated by the damage prevented.
Most Californians remember the 1977 drought and the resulting environmental and economic damage, explaining why most Californians support this solution.
This is a simple problem with essentially two options:
Either increase/manage more storage, or allow irreversible environmental and economic damage to occur.
California is already straining under the hardships imposed by 35 years of anti-growth/power tug-of-war policies, while its population DOUBLED.
And BTW, a bipartisan commission this past month announced the commencement of EIR and necessary legidlation to begin construction of the "Sites" reservoir in upper central valley...the commission was headed by long time CA Democrat Congressman John Garamendi.
I posted that article primarily because it provided an excellent explanation of CA's water problem, NOT to provide fuel to initiate a Troll debate.
