California introduces new law restricting people to 55 gal water per day

[etrain16]

Well, the "who cares" for me is imbued with the idea that because they are responsible for what happens there, they are on their own. OR & WA state gov is nuts to give water to them but our leaders want the $$$.

Calif allows unrestricted immigration. Calif allow hyper lawn growth (and no I'm not a "greenie"). Calif allows all "their" rivers to flow unrestricted to the sea in order to protect species like the snail darter. The Sacramento and Klamath rivers alone are enough to meet their entire water budget. Soooo it's their progressive ideology that get's them into trouble. Our dear leaders have the same ideology so won't let Calif suffer the consequences.

I say screw em. All of them!!

Oh I absolutely agree with you on that - I just fear the spread of their ever-encroaching BS making it up here. We have enough of their influence as it is. The more they get in trouble, the more likely we get drawn into their mess. Really pizzes me off.

 

[Argonaut]

Oh I absolutely agree with you on that - I just fear the spread of their ever-encroaching BS making it up here. We have enough of their influence as it is. The more they get in trouble, the more likely we get drawn into their mess. Really pizzes me off.

People have been saying that since John Fremont went to war with Mexico but the pendulum swings both ways. Tomorrow will be interesting, there is a fair chance that the conservitives will do well in the primary. That will shake up the status quo.

 

[etrain16]

People have been saying that since John Fremont went to war with Mexico but the pendulum swings both ways. Tomorrow will be interesting, there is a fair chance that the conservitives will do well in the primary. That will shake up the status quo.

They've got both a Republican Governor candidate and a Senate candidate that are doing very well in the polling. Perhaps enough folks in CA are sick enough of the decades of horribly failed Democrat policies and are finally getting together to try and do something about it.

That said, I'm just hoping that if they get an R Governor and/or Senator come November, that they're not the kind of Republicans, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, who may as well have been a Democrat.

 

[bbbass]

Yep, it is something that spreads because people crap in their own kennel and then run to another to crap in that one too. Typhoid Mary never knew it was her that was causing the sickness around her!!!

 

[Argonaut]

They've got both a Republican Governor candidate and a Senate candidate that are doing very well in the polling. Perhaps enough folks in CA are sick enough of the decades of horribly failed Democrat policies and are finally getting together to try and do something about it.

That said, I'm just hoping that if they get an R Governor and/or Senator come November, that they're not the kind of Republicans, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, who may as well have been a Democrat.

I worked with the Schwarzenegger administration while I was on the California coastal commission. Arnold was very good early but when he was beaten down by the nurses and prison guards unions he became ineffective. I think he just lost the heart for the nessisary fight. Still lots of great conservitives in power in the state, I campaigned against Devin Nunes (for Jim Patterson) when he first ran but have been very pleased with him as of late. Tom McClintock is great, Darrel Issa, lots of good guys that we can't dismiss simply because they are from California. Oregon and Washington have way more than there share of Turkey legislators that we should be focused on defeating and sending to the trash can of infamy on this particular forum. I also worked with Pete Wilson who I thought was wonderful, he is the one that actually got Arnold elected. If he hadn't had the throat cancer and mostly lost his voice, he would have been a great president about the time the Clinton's surfaced and Deukmejian actually left a balanced budget all post Reagan.

 

[etrain16]

I worked with the Schwarzenegger administration while I was on the California coastal commission. Arnold was very good early but when he was beaten down by the nurses and prison guards unions he became ineffective. I think he just lost the heart for the nessisary fight. Still lots of great conservitives in power in the state, I campaigned against Devin Nunes (for Jim Patterson) when he first ran but have been very pleased with him as of late. Tom McClintock is great, Darrel Issa, lots of good guys that we can't dismiss simply because they are from California. Oregon and Washington have way more than there share of Turkey legislators that we should be focused on defeating and sending to the trash can of infamy on this particular forum. I also worked with Pete Wilson who I thought was wonderful, he is the one that actually got Arnold elected. If he hadn't had the throat cancer and mostly lost his voice, he would have been a great president about the time the Clinton's surfaced and Deukmejian actually left a balanced budget all post Reagan.

I had been hopeful that Arnold might have been a good shot for CA, but like you said, he just seemed to give in to the other side.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Aquifers are being drained down here in LG, and across the U.S.. Some day we will see a renewal of the old timey fights over water. It's been coming.

How many years does it take for water to seep thru layers of terra? 150yrs at Zion park. So we never catch up, eh?

Now where do you suppose all that fracking mixture and Handford leakage goes. HMMMMM?

Yeah we'll never cut down all the trees or catch all the fish....

 

[bbbass]

Yeah we'll never cut down all the trees or catch all the fish....

We can try!

 

[bbbass]

I had been hopeful that Arnold might have been a good shot for CA, but like you said, he just seemed to give in to the other side.

Maria beat him up pretty good.

 

[jbett98]

They'll need stillsuits fairly soon.

 

[kmk1012]

I don't know where to start, and frankly I'm not sure it's worth the time. The city sells me water, at a profit I might add. Like many places, Salem's water system is a cash cow, which they use to pay for many of the services provided to those who pay less in taxes. Did you ever think about that? And, just who is dying because I water my lawn? Funny how some people are so quick to dictate to others. Population growth is the real problem, and it's not due to natural increase. Who said they could give my country away? Nobody asked me.

Govt entities cannot operate at a profit.

 

[bbbass]

They'll need stillsuits fairly soon.

No more Dunkin Idaho.

 

[bbbass]

Govt entities cannot operate at a profit.

Did you think about that before you wrote it? Very rarely are there absolutes. They don't call it profit, just like we didn't when I worked for a 501c3.

To my knowledge there is no prohibition against a municipal entity generating revenue that exceeds it's expenses. Generally, these revenues are then invested in some manner, such as an offset to unfunded retirement liability, capital investments in projects, or even banked. They do have to answer to city council, city manager, etc, to get their budgets and rates approved. But that is very easy to manipulate.

Just one example:

<broken link removed>
<broken link removed> In order to bolster revenue, there are several other revenue sources, including local option taxes, service charges, and fees levied by municipalities, counties or special district governments with state approval. These additional sources help municipalities, especially smaller cities, gain financial stability, broaden the tax base, expand the types of activities taxed and increase their independence from state and federal finances. Local Revenue Structures

 

[SUPER X]

Maybe it is time for California to build some desalination plants along the coast if water is going to be a problem.

If Cali breaks off of the rest of the contanant and sinks into the Pacific they will have plenty of water.

 

[ob1]

Govt entities cannot operate at a profit.

Why do you think they keep coming up with new spiffy reasons to "spend" revenue ?

Ask someone you know who lives in Portland to show you their water bill. Then take a look at the Portland "Art Tax" pie chart and try to figure out where the money goes for that.

Did you think about that before you wrote it? Very rarely are there absolutes. They don't call it profit, just like we didn't when I worked for a 501c3.

Why the term "kicker" is so repugnant to Dem's.

 

[bbbass]

Why the term "kicker" is so repugnant to Dem's.

Yes, but that is written in the State of Oregon constitution. Legislature has to get a waiver to keep any part of the excess "tax" revenue.

When it comes to local (city), county, public entities, there are those which "tax", those that charge "fees" and those that do both. A water district such as the Salem district being discussed, generally exists on "fees" or if you prefer "service charges". As you mentioned, if such an entity can manage to get approval for high enough rates, it can squander the money in higher salaries for top mgt, seminars in Hawaii, luxury SUVs, or any number of things, including sponsoring a program to help the "needy" by transfering funds to a sister agency. As long as it is all "accounted" for on the books, then it's hunky jory. Complaints about rates from peons fall on deaf ears because city or county management is all in on the game or in some cases just not paying attention to detail. (This is how the fattest projects get approved. Do we really think it costs 500M for a new county jail?)

 

[The Heretic]

That's a matter of perspective, isn't it?. Nursery stock is a high value crop that produces more revenue, and therefore tax income for the state, than say a wheat field. Also provides more jobs per acre, so more people can support their families with productive labor. Landscaping enhances our environment, and makes cities more pleasant places to live, rather than just concrete jungles.

We don't have a food problem - yet. Talk about waste, so much food is thrown away. If food becomes scarce, prices will rise to the point that land will go back to its production. Nursery stock would be a less profitable alternative. The market, if left alone, takes care of everything.

The same can be said for water. Nobody is getting it at a discount, that I know of. I am paying the city more than it costs to provide it. That implies no real shortage. Let the price rise as the actual cost of production goes up, and people will be incentivized to conserve. No need to ban this or that. One man's waste is another man's livelihood.

I don't drink alcohol, so I could say land put into vineyards or hop yards is "wasted" (or pot farms, for that matter). And the water used to irrigate them is wasted. Screw all those people who work in the industry. Screw all those people who enjoy the product.

Once you start down that road it's very dangerous. It's all about who gets to decide, and what they think is important. You may think you have the answer in banning this or that, but give someone else that power and it can go bad on you real fast.

I don't mind playing the free market advocate here.

I am all for the free market. I was not saying people should not be allowed to raise nursery stock, I am just saying that it is disturbing to me to drive along back roads I have driven for decades and see land that used to produce food crops now producing landscaping plants.

When it comes to a head, converting land that raises trees and shrubs to land that can produce food efficiently instead, will take years - even with some food crops it takes years to go from one crop to another - especially with orchards.

There will come a time, surely after I am gone, when having relatively level arable land with a good well, a decent southern exposure, a good garden and some fruit trees, a well insulated home and solar panels will be the difference between living a decent life and barely surviving, it at all. I intend to leave such a place for my daughter - or at least the start of one.

 

[The Heretic]

BTW, I thought "The Population Bomb" had been debunked.

For us IMO it's not so much that our population has gone from 76M in 1600 to 360M in 2018, but it's where population has settled. Massive land tracts remain underpopulated across the country while the coasts continue to amass.

People keep saying that, but when I point out that those "massive land tracts" are often also deserts and mountains and otherwise non-arable land, they go:





As already pointed out, when people try to live in arid deserts, it takes even more water and even more energy to support them.

Are you going to live here?



Or on the side of a mountain?

Or on a mud flat?

Yeah right.

There are reasons people don't live certain places.

Moreover, we are over fishing and polluting our oceans. We now have whales dying found with tons of plastic filling their stomachs. we are reaching a breaking point and yes, the carrying capacity. It won't happen tomorrow, or next year, probably not even while I am still alive - but we are seeing the beginning of the end. Maybe not our kids, but probably our grandkids will see it and it won't be pretty and all the excuses will be just so much bovine fecal matter that people then will wonder how we said things so stupid when all the evidence was right there in front of our faces.

 

[darkminstrel]

Most of the water goes to agriculture. I'm guessing they won't have their allotments reduced.

 

[The Heretic]

Most of the water goes to agriculture. I'm guessing they won't have their allotments reduced.

Yes, the ag business has a lot of power in Calif and they do use most of the water. OTOH, Food is more important than lawns - there is little harm in letting a lawn go brown. If a crop fails, then somebody has to pay more for their food (or doesn't get to eat) and the farmer loses money - from there it is a downward spiral; most farmers live crop to crop, they can't afford to lose a crop just because someone wants pretty flowers in their yard.