|
They should start handing out monthly $1000 fines to homeowners who are not actively in the process of xeriscaping.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:They should start handing out monthly $1000 fines to homeowners who are not actively in the process of xeriscaping. See my edit though. Problem is people bought in these burbs because they wanted green lawns and are terrified of home values. And they vote, for the people who proclaim no scary change. These people hire Dan Peelman. The rant I could go on about west san berardino county city attorney cases could fill a book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:. But the idea that farmers should just give up water they bought for free isn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:What if, you see, I had a very long straw... And you had a milkshake.... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
If we're going to post about straws...
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:If we're going to post about straws... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
My secret shame is that I actually read a lot of popular short fiction and don't know much about funny pictures. I'm a disgrace to Something Awful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It actually is their water because they bought the water rights and are now reselling it. Now if you want to complain that because the farmers bought the water rights a long time ago they paid too little, well that could be a good argument. But the idea that farmers should just give up water they bought for free isn't. This is the most insane reasoning. We don't live in the 18th century any more. The idea of a handful of wealthy men controlling public resources into perpetuity, with the public having no recourse against it, is barbaric. The whole robber baron concept should be done away with, not embraced as if it was some God-given right. Don't quote centuries-old legal concepts (which have been long-abandoned in every field except for water resources) at me while California literally burns over every year for lack of water. Until the Supreme Court gets packed with Republicans and authorizes the "Coca-Cola (tm) River", the public owns the rivers and watersheds and it is free to decide how they should be used and protected. Clearly the water barons have already made vast sums of money off their investment of $5 in 1857, there is no reason to continue that tradition. nm posted:This is river water. I'm still not sure sending water down south to wash cars and water golf courses is all that more productive than growing food. Completely agreed, which is why we should be instituting public utilities with the power to utilize and protect our water resources, and not just shrugging and praying for the free market to work its magic. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Kaal posted:This is the most insane reasoning. We don't live in the 18th century any more. The idea of a handful of wealthy men controlling public resources into perpetuity, with the public having no recourse against it, is barbaric. The whole robber baron concept should be done away with, not embraced as if it was some God-given right. Don't quote centuries-old legal concepts, which have been long-abandoned in every field except for water resources, at me while California literally burns over every year for lack of water. Until the Supreme Court gets packed with Republicans and authorizes the "Coca-Cola (tm) River", the public owns the river and it is free to decide how it should be used and protected. This is especially true considering how corrupt the deals were in the first place, and they give someone something, forever, at the public's expense. Subsidizing the gently caress out of well-connected families is not what taxpayer money should be doing. Convert water rights to leases, actually adjust prices/availability based on supply (shock), and tar and feather anyone who complains. Water rights in the west are a horrible joke. At least with property there's this concept of property taxes to pay for services that the property uses/gives, like public safety and education.. and you typically need to do something to make money off of it, and if the public needs it it can eminent domain it back. The public is paying for the infrastructure that moves the water for these water rights, as well as the water itself, so that these folks can make easy money. Forever. This poo poo is basically feudal in nature. The fact that decades ago someone signed some piece of paper for some paltry amount of money doesn't magically mean that we have to provide this thing free of charge. Buy out the water rights at whatever they paid for it + inflation, and call it a day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Kaal posted:This is the most insane reasoning. We don't live in the 18th century any more. The idea of a handful of wealthy men controlling public resources into perpetuity, with the public having no recourse against it, is barbaric. The whole robber baron concept should be done away with, not embraced as if it was some God-given right. Don't quote centuries-old legal concepts (which have been long-abandoned in every field except for water resources) at me while California literally burns over every year for lack of water. Until the Supreme Court gets packed with Republicans and authorizes the "Coca-Cola (tm) River", the public owns the river and it is free to decide how it should be used and protected. Clearly the water barons have already made vast sums of money off their investment of $5 in 1857, there is no reason to continue that tradition. How are water rights meaningfully different than any other land rights? The public has a legal way to take property, its called eminent domain and the government has to pay a fair price when it does. You're arguing that the state should be able to take away people's property without fair payment for the property, which isn't exactly a modern political concept. You're blind to the realities of Californian politics if you think that at the end of the day we won't destroy the central valley (and our hopes at non-corn based diets) before we stop golf courses. Pervis posted:Water rights in the west are a horrible joke. At least with property there's this concept of property taxes to pay for services that the property uses/gives, like public safety and education.. and you typically need to do something to make money off of it, and if the public needs it it can eminent domain it back. The public is paying for the infrastructure that moves the water for these water rights, as well as the water itself, so that these folks can make easy money. Forever. This poo poo is basically feudal in nature. The fact that decades ago someone signed some piece of paper for some paltry amount of money doesn't magically mean that we have to provide this thing free of charge. Buy out the water rights at whatever they paid for it + inflation, and call it a day. You're 100% wrong that ag doesn't pay for service and delivery. It isn't free.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
This is just more of the same bullshit we always hear. "Rich farmers should continue to get vast subsidies forever, and if you want to take them away then you have to pay the value of that subsidy, which is a million trillion dollars because the value of a watershed multiplied by the duration of human civilization is priceless." Yeah no thanks, pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Kaal posted:This is just more of the same bullshit we always hear. "Rich farmers should continue to get vast subsidies forever, and if you want to take them away then you have to pay the value of that subsidy, which is a million trillion dollars because the value of a watershed multiplied by the duration of human civilization is priceless." Yeah no thanks, pull the other one. I hope you really like corn and soy then.... But to be clear, eminent domain isn't radical enough for you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I hope you really like corn and soy then.... But to be clear, eminent domain isn't radical enough for you? Right, America is just about to run out of food. If farmers start having to pay for the water they use, society will collapse  The fact of the matter is that there is no need to Eminent Domain a watershed, because the public has always owned it. It's given away the resources based on land ownership and honey-sweet deals, but it is not in any way obliged to continue doing so if an alternative method of water allocation is implemented. edit: Also, it's a completely terrible state of affairs if you're Big Ag advocate and think of corn and soy as being water-efficient crops. Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:How are water rights meaningfully different than any other land rights? The public has a legal way to take property, its called eminent domain and the government has to pay a fair price when it does. When the public sells property for vastly less than a fair price, then the public has to buy it back up at a fair price, something's wrong. And golf courses have jack poo poo to do with the Central Valley. 90% of all water use in the state is Ag. We could stop all industry and muni water use in the state and it's going to do jack poo poo to help or hurt the Central Valley. The Central Valley has way more water rights than it has water available, and that's what's going to destroy it, at least south of the Delta. quote:You're 100% wrong that ag doesn't pay for service and delivery. It isn't free. Ag is paying for service and delivery of water that is being sold to cities? Ag paid for the canals and reservoirs of the CVP, and their upkeep? No, that was federal money, and purchases of electricity by industry/cities produced by the dams continue a lot of the upkeep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Desperately hoping that that San Andreas movie happens in real life. But before then Northern California cuts Southern California off and leaves them to die. gently caress LA
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I hope you really like corn and soy then.... When you eminent domain a house, you pay FMV for the house. But there's an active market for houses, and houses don't last forever, so you're only gonna pay a few hundred K for the house. When you eminent domain a water right, you'd (presumably) have to pay FMV for the water right. But water rights are so precious in CA that nobody sells them, they just sell the water. How much is the rights to all of California's water worth, on the open market? You can't find that value by looking at some active marketplace in which perpetual water rights are bought and sold, because it doesn't really exist. So, the state is going to have to sieze water rights, pay "something" which will ultimately just be a made-up number, and then fight it out in the courts, right the way up to the supreme court most likely, and pay for the cost of that litigation. Meanwhile, the public is gonna see all the signs about the overstepping Gubment DESTROYING FARMERS RARGH and vote the wrong way, because the public are gullible idiots who don't understand how badly we've been taken for a ride on this whole hereditary water rights thing. Kaal posted:The fact of the matter is that there is no need to Eminent Domain a watershed, because the public has always owned it. It's given away the resources based on land ownership and honey-sweet deals, but it is not in any way obliged to continue doing so if an alternative method of water allocation is implemented. All ownership of land in the US is based on the public (the government) owning it. You don't "own" land, you own a deed to some land. That's why you can't just declare "your" land a soverign country: it's literally what Eminent Domain means... the state has superior domain over your land. Legally (not arguing from an ethics or moralistic "rights" standpoint), water rights have similar ownership as land rights, in that people have legal documents granting them transferrable perpetual right to do what they want with the water, just as a land deed grants similar rights for a plot of land. Deeds vary in type and many land deeds explicitly exclude mineral or water rights (or other rights, such as right-to-pass, access, etc.) and laws further restrict usage rights (you cannot dump toxic waste on "your" land just because it's "yours"). If we all agree that it's dumb to grant perpetual usage deeds to extract water from a river, fine, but Eminent Domain is precisely what is needed to reclaim or revoke such rights, obviously, because they've been explicitly granted via government-issued and sold deeds that grant precisely those rights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Pervis posted:Ag is paying for service and delivery of water that is being sold to cities? Ag paid for the canals and reservoirs of the CVP, and their upkeep? No, that was federal money, and purchases of electricity by industry/cities produced by the dams continue a lot of the upkeep. See this is the insanity of your demands. It's not enough that Ag pays for the costs of delivering water to Ag, but you're demanding that they pay for water deliveries to cities too. Ag uses pay for the costs of delivering their own water. UC Davis has freely available cost estimates for most California crops. Water related costs are a huge part of it. Don't believe me? Look at how much land lays fallow when water prices rise. But let's stop growing non-corn so I don't have to use low flow toilets or stop golfing. Priorities people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:See this is the insanity of your demands. It's not enough that Ag pays for the costs of delivering water to Ag, but you're demanding that they pay for water deliveries to cities too. Ag uses pay for the costs of delivering their own water. Now you're just trolling. Golfing and toilets have nothing to do with non-corn farming, or ag water use, as it's so vanishingly small demand and doesn't effect the supply in a major way, as we've covered in the thread already (90% of all water use is ag), and thus has nothing to do with un-loving the water rights system so that cities aren't subsidizing someone already being subsidized (by relatively low-cost water). Water prices rise when water supply is down, and when supply is down land will have to lay fallow as there isn't water. This isn't like producing more cars or some other tangible item when prices rise - it's water, it's not like there's some slightly more expensive to extract water supply out there to frack or something. The supply we have available is almost entirely inelastic to demand. It either falls in a way we can capture it or it doesn't. We're growing whatever is most profitable, a lot of it for export out of the US (and a lot more out of the State). We'll still be able to grow plenty, especially if we actually cut the amount of water rights down to something approaching average outflows over time available for ag use, and are able to actually use reservoir storage during dry years. Right now we're penned in - we can't pre-emptively cut down on water deliveries in the beginning of a drought, we can only do so once we're in a fairly serious drought, so we end up having nothing to deliver during dry times. Hence why the last time the system was somewhat full was 2002. The fact that we gave out more water rights than the system can legitimately deliver over time does not somehow mean that cities need to pay out the rear end for water to those who we handed out senior water rights to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
You can pry my low-flow toilet from my cold dead rear end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Pervis posted:Now you're just trolling. Golfing and toilets have nothing to do with non-corn farming, or ag water use, as it's so vanishingly small demand and doesn't effect the supply in a major way, as we've covered in the thread already (90% of all water use is ag), and thus has nothing to do with un-loving the water rights system so that cities aren't subsidizing someone already being subsidized (by relatively low-cost water). Water prices rise when water supply is down, and when supply is down land will have to lay fallow as there isn't water. This isn't like producing more cars or some other tangible item when prices rise - it's water, it's not like there's some slightly more expensive to extract water supply out there to frack or something. The supply we have available is almost entirely inelastic to demand. It either falls in a way we can capture it or it doesn't. I'm saying that while Ag is a large user, at least there is a pro-public outcome from that use: food. Golf course and mega-fluser toilets clearly have social value, but I'm arguing the food grown has a greater marginal value to society. Of course we're growing whatever is most profitable, but unless you're arguing for export bans on fruit and nuts, the fact is California has amazing soil and climate that lets it grow important crops that can't just be as effectively grown elsewhere. Your other points about changing how and when we store water and how we respond to drought are great ones, but ones that can work without reallocating water rights without compensation. Realize that when the die is cast, cities will win. The most recent huge water bill is a great example. The nature of the Californian democracy means that if the urban areas are united they are unstoppable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Yeah boo hoo democracy. When the vast majority of people want something, they often get it  Basically I can't take your position seriously, because you're coming across as a mustache twirling water baron.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Pervis posted:Now you're just trolling. Golfing and toilets have nothing to do with non-corn farming, or ag water use, as it's so vanishingly small demand and doesn't effect the supply in a major way, as we've covered in the thread already (90% of all water use is ag) This is why feverish declarations that California is on the brink of a Mad Max societal collapse when the water runs out are ridiculous. We could easily support double or triple the population we have now with some simple tweaks to the subsidization of water for ag use. Just means less rice and almonds and alfalfa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:They should start handing out monthly $1000 fines to homeowners who are not actively in the process of xeriscaping. Oh gently caress off Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Desperately hoping that that San Andreas movie happens in real life. But before then Northern California cuts Southern California off and leaves them to die. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Oh gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Yeah boo hoo democracy. When the vast majority of people want something, they often get it I'm just pointing out that the real water baron is LADWP. Ask those evil farmers in the Owens Valley. Edit: for those arguing that Ag should use a smaller % of total water use in California, what is a correct percent in your mind? How much food price increase is ok to increase the amount of water used for cities (helping them grow)? I'm all in favor of increasing efficiency in all sectors. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
SoCalian eh? How's our water treatin' ya?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Must be great living in a desert and getting all your water shipped in from the fertile north.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Oxnard has a nifty water reclamation plant... One that we haven't been able to use because public doesn't want to drink reclaimed water and the farmers don't want to pay $1,000 per acre-foot. But it'll be here when we eventually need it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
That actually sounds cool. I get why northern California doesn't need them (ha!) but they'd probably be a huge help especially now with this drought. If the drought gets any worse people aren't going to have much of a choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:SoCalian eh? How's our water treatin' ya? Yes, excellent work on your meritorious choice of being born closer to where water exists, we're exceptionally envious of your foresight and of the brilliant work that you, personally, put into creating water in Northern California.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:Yes, excellent work on your meritorious choice of being born closer to where water exists, we're exceptionally envious of your foresight and of the brilliant work that you, personally, put into creating water in Northern California. Moved here, maybe you should do the same.  Now if only I could afford to move out of this loving state. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:Yes, excellent work on your meritorious choice of being born closer to where water exists, we're exceptionally envious of your foresight and of the brilliant work that you, personally, put into creating water in Northern California. People have been bragging about how "nice" the weather is since Christmas. When you are seeing 90 degrees in December the appropriate response is: "oh poo poo I wonder what August will be like" and "oh poo poo I hope this drought ends".
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:People moving to SoCal in 2015 "because the weather is soooo nice!" is still a thing and deserves to be highlighted and taunted as idiotic. Ahuh, I'm nervous about already hitting the upper 70's / low 80's in San Jose. Mostly because my house doesn't have AC since "it doesn't get that hot in SJ!" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Are you the guy that always defends the honor of OC? I'm one who, because I lived in OC most of my life, can distinguish between costal OC stereotypes and the rest of it, yes. Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Must be great living in a desert and getting all your water shipped in from the fertile north. it's actually not a desert
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:I'm one who, because I lived in OC most of my life, can distinguish between costal OC stereotypes and the rest of it, yes. I live in Southern California as well, and unlike you I've bothered to do my research on the area's geography. It is classified as a desert due to the miniscule amount of rain it gets. Urban areas hide this very well of course, but here are some photos from SoCal wilderness:    Not all deserts are sand-dune deserts like the ones you see in movies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:it's actually not a desert Fine, desert and urban sprawl
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
The Los Angeles area isn't a desert, though I guess it can be argued that parts of the Inland Empire are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:The Los Angeles area isn't a desert, though I guess it can be argued that parts of the Inland Empire are. While it isn't a desert it also doesn't have local supplies of water to support the population of now or the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:While it isn't a desert it also doesn't have local supplies of water to support the population of now or the future. Yeah that part is true, I agree with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
The only area on the west coast that is hard to distinguish from New Jersey. The OC. Its a cultural desert.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 03:25
|
|