Carly Fiorina Tests Her Campaign Chops

[Chizzang]

Oh boy...................

There just aren't enough face palms on the internets.

Hey he's from Baltimore back off I went to high school there... its far away

[dbackjon]

So you want to build the 3 BILLION dollar Sites Reservoir - who is paying for it?

And most of the water that would go into Sites is already spoken for, so really doesn't help the situation in years like now.

$7.8 billion bond measure approved last fall.

Next

And the amount allocated in the bond that could pay for Sites doesn't cover the cost to build it.


So again, who is paying for it?

[dbackjon]

...And most of the water that would go into Sites is already spoken for, so really doesn't help the situation in years like now.

Source?

One link here

http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/06/01/395 ... .html?rh=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Grizalltheway]

Fresneck Bee?!? Pssh, just another Manure Pile mouthpiece.

[travelinman67]

$7.8 billion bond measure approved last fall.

Next

And the amount allocated in the bond that could pay for Sites doesn't cover the cost to build it.


So again, who is paying for it?

Irrelevant, Obstructionistjon.

$2 billion of the bond is earmarked SPECIFICALLY for Sites (estimated $3.7 billion), and Rep. Garamendi is carrying the congressional bill to cover the balance.

NOTE: Sites is expected to generate $275 million in annual water sales and will have paid for itself in approx. 12 years.

Next

[travelinman67]

Source?

One link here

http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/06/01/395 ... .html?rh=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An opinion piece that asserts all "new" water will be flushed down the rivers to protect the fish.



You apparently haven't kept up on current events.

The "order" from Bureau of Reclamation (Obama Administration) to empty the reservoirs for fish protection is being overtly disregarded by California Dept of Water Resources and local water agencies. That issue is before the Federal court in Fresno which has been ruling AGAINST the Bureau the past three years.

Much of the existing shortage goes directly back to the White House's pandering of environmental groups.

SURPRISE!!!

[andy7171]

Source?

One link here

http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/06/01/395 ... .html?rh=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dback wins. The fucking Bee! /thread

[dbackjon]

And the amount allocated in the bond that could pay for Sites doesn't cover the cost to build it.


So again, who is paying for it?

Irrelevant, Obstructionistjon.

$2 billion of the bond is earmarked SPECIFICALLY for Sites (estimated $3.7 billion), and Rep. Garamendi is carrying the congressional bill to cover the balance.

NOTE: Sites is expected to generate $275 million in annual water sales and will have paid for itself in approx. 12 years.

Next

So you small government types want the FEDS to pay for it, but have no say in environmental issues.

And it will NOT generate that amount in sales, since most of the water can not be sold. In addition, those are best, best, best case scenarios, using water totals that are not realistic.


NEXT

[houndawg]

Irrelevant, Obstructionistjon.

$2 billion of the bond is earmarked SPECIFICALLY for Sites (estimated $3.7 billion), and Rep. Garamendi is carrying the congressional bill to cover the balance.

NOTE: Sites is expected to generate $275 million in annual water sales and will have paid for itself in approx. 12 years.

Next

So you small government types want the FEDS to pay for it, but have no say in environmental issues.

And it will NOT generate that amount in sales, since most of the water can not be sold. In addition, those are best, best, best case scenarios, using water totals that are not realistic.


NEXT

They're way over the carrying capacity of the State. This is just mother nature's way of dealing with the infestation. No need to waste taxpayer money here when it could be used to fund the next war.


I think unravellinman secretly enjoys having the wood laid to him.

[JohnStOnge]

To me this situation is an obvious illustration of why the Endangered Species Act is a problem. The survival of something like the Delta Smelt is not something that should be a factor in the decisions being made with respect to water in that State right now.

Do you know what it'll mean if the Delta Smelt goes extinct? I'll give you the answer: It'll mean that the Delta Smelt goes extinct. It's not a problem for our species. We can go along just fine without the Delta Smelt.

[kalm]

To me this situation is an obvious illustration of why the Endangered Species Act is a problem. The survival of something like the Delta Smelt is not something that should be a factor in the decisions being made with respect to water in that State right now.

Do you know what it'll mean if the Delta Smelt goes extinct? I'll give you the answer: It'll mean that the Delta Smelt goes extinct. It's not a problem for our species. We can go along just fine without the Delta Smelt.

How do you know?

[travelinman67]

Irrelevant, Obstructionistjon.

$2 billion of the bond is earmarked SPECIFICALLY for Sites (estimated $3.7 billion), and Rep. Garamendi is carrying the congressional bill to cover the balance.

NOTE: Sites is expected to generate $275 million in annual water sales and will have paid for itself in approx. 12 years.

Next

So you small government types want the FEDS to pay for it, but have no say in environmental issues.

And it will NOT generate that amount in sales, since most of the water can not be sold. In addition, those are best, best, best case scenarios, using water totals that are not realistic.


NEXT

D1Backjon, please use anti-bacterial soap when washing off the shit you got on your hands while pulling that crap out of your ass.

Here are the numbers from the Fed study...(Chapters four.and five)...

http://www.water.ca.gov/storage/northde ... _index.cfm

[travelinman67]

So you small government types want the FEDS to pay for it, but have no say in environmental issues.

And it will NOT generate that amount in sales, since most of the water can not be sold. In addition, those are best, best, best case scenarios, using water totals that are not realistic.


NEXT

They're way over the carrying capacity of the State. This is just mother nature's way of dealing with the infestation. No need to waste taxpayer money here when it could be used to fund the next war.


I think unravellinman secretly enjoys having the wood laid to him.

Go masturbate,.Densedawg...

...it's the least disruptive activity you do.

[kalm]

Isn't Washington one of the States that doesn't allow home owners to capture rain runoff?

Indeed it is..!!!
There are creeks and streams all over that are natures way of doing that



Washington is not s desert (unless you are in Spokane) but that doesn't count
So they want no interference with the natural flow of waterways and natural collection points

Spokane is temperate forest. 1/2 of Washington is desert/shrub steppe. Most of Seattle's power comes from our side of the mountains.

Facts you probably didn't know.

Ecology has a hard on for letting rainfall run it's course through recharging aquifers and natural runoff. So much so that it's illegal to use storm water runoff ponds for commercial irrigation purposes even thought that water still goes into the aquifer.

It's like the minimum wage. Washington state isn't just Redmond.