|
Sydin posted:I don't know why this is so loving funny to me but it is. The only thing that could make this better if it specified how many gallons of evaporated water there was
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:The only thing that could make this better if it specified how many gallons of evaporated water there was "approximately 21,000 acre-feet evaporated" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:"approximately 21,000 acre-feet evaporated" So that’s 6.843x10^12 Lake Erie is 1.27x10^14
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
It's about 0.006% of a Lake Erie, they've got comma as a decimal separator. 39 football field x statues of liberty (the most American of units  )Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Dec 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 01:43
|
|
|
Ok that makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 02:12
|
|
|
No the only thing that would be better is if Texas had to sue the 21,000 acre-feet of evaporated water (more or less)
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 04:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No the only thing that would be better is if Texas had to sue the 21,000 acre-feet of evaporated water (more or less) Texas man deposes cloud
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 04:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No the only thing that would be better is if Texas had to sue the 21,000 acre-feet of evaporated water (more or less) This would be no more than the second dumbest lawsuit filed by Texas this year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 04:43
|
|
|
Jokes aside the whole episode seems incredibly petty and short sighted by Texas. I'm going to wager that the next time there's an impending tropical storm and they have to ask other states to hold water for them, they're going to get told to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
They’ve been arguing over water rights for decades, that’s the whole reason there’s a compact and a river master. They still work together on it when they can. Asking for a review of what is essentially an agency determination isn’t going to change anything
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
So was Texas’ water considered to be on the top of the reservoir, in the reverse of the milkshake joke, or was the calculation based solely on the additional surface area of the reservoir at the higher level, or was it like “half the water in this lake belongs to Texas; half the evaporation does as well”?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 03:58
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:So was Texas’ water considered to be on the top of the reservoir, in the reverse of the milkshake joke, or was the calculation based solely on the additional surface area of the reservoir at the higher level, or was it like “half the water in this lake belongs to Texas; half the evaporation does as well”? No the language of the agreement explicitly allows for losses due to storage and explains that those losses are not subtracted from the delivery or anything, basically "that water still would have evaporated if you'd stored it in texas so  tough titties, pal"
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 07:25
|
|
|
They should've calculated the expected evaporation delta between storage in NM and storage in TX based on local climate and/or weather conditions and in the event that TX' evaporation would've been greater charged them extra imo. Just as a gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 09:41
|
|
|
I normally just lurk in this thread, but since hydrosystems is an area I worked in for several years, the New Mexico v. Texas case and follow-up discussion is of interest and wanted to chime in a little. Reading through the decision language, and admittedly I haven't looked at any background documentation, if the decision is largely resting on evaporative losses for storage, then I actually think the decision may be not that good and short-sighted. The reason is because it seems like the losses are being attributed to evaporation only, and not infiltration at the location of storage? While evaporation is definitely going to play a part and I think it's fair to include it in the calculation of delivered water, infiltration is also a significant factor in reservoir losses, especially where the reservoir isn't located on hard bedrock that would reduce infiltration, or otherwise is located on reservoirs that have maintained long-term storage and relatively consistent water surface elevations. If neither of those are the case here (and I honestly don't know), then infiltration would increase significantly from the additional storage suddenly required in a transient event such as a storm, for an otherwise normally smaller reservoir. The result would be localized increases in the level of the adjacent aquifers, which ultimately would reduce the rate of aquifer discharge into the local water bodies. Effectively, New Mexico's local/regional aquifer tables would see a reduction in outflows toward the river due to the infiltration, which means that it effectively count as an (unmeasured) transfer of water from Texas to New Mexico. This is why typically in States with compacts and agreements related to shared storage, etc., there is often a "dead pool" volume that is maintained, in part to make sure that infiltration is less of a concern in terms of water obligations. This concept is also starting to make it's way to the Army Corps and others in terms of how they define Waters of the US, regulatory requirements, etc., because historically the river itself was considered the shared asset, but they're looking to expand that to aquifers, etc., for how to limit or regulate the uses of contributory watersheds further away, such as commercial farming that lowers aquifer levels significantly. Anyway, just a few thoughts I wanted to throw out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 06:59
|
|
|
It's not sitting on anything particular to evaporation. Texas argued that their request to New Mexico to store the water in an email titled 'Texas request for storage' is not storage of water for purposes of the river compact, or alternately a procedural thing where the time they took to negotiate actually just ran out the clock on New Mexico getting credit for it. Court rejected those arguments, says this bit River Master Manual posted:If a quantity of the Texas allocation is stored in facilities constructed in New Mexico at the request of Texas, then to the extent not inconsistent with the conditions imposed pursuant to Article IV(e) of the Compact, this quantity will be reduced by the amount of reservoir losses attributable to its storage, and, when released for delivery to Texas, the quantity released less channel losses is to be delivered by New Mexico at the New Mexico-Texas state line. (Alito's dissent is some moon logic thing where Texas isn't allowed to request storage of water and keeping the allocation in the reservoir was illegal)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 07:23
|
|
|
I want Alito’s house to be flooded because actually it was illegal to store that water anywhere upstream.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 07:27
|
|
|
I looked at the Peco’s River Master’s Manual and it doesn’t go into why the formulæ are what they are, just how to apply them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 07:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1339949206598004746?s=21
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:Reading through the decision language, and admittedly I haven't looked at any background documentation, if the decision is largely resting on evaporative losses for storage, then I actually think the decision may be not that good and short-sighted. The cause of loss is not relevant; the only question is if Texas can wiggle out of the "if you ask New Mexico to store, storage losses are your problem" clause of the compact. Texas threw a couple of things against the wall, but none stuck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
Fine.  Opinion! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. NEW YORK, ET AL. TLDR: As expected after oral argument, the census case isn’t ready to be resolved because no one knows right now if we’re talking about 5 people or 5 million. And if it doesn’t impact a single congressional seat, who cares? Majority Opinion (Per Curiam): Every ten years, the Nation undertakes an “Enumeration” of its population “in such Manner” as Congress “shall by Law direct.” This census plays a critical role in apportioning Members of the House of Representatives among the States... Congress has given both the Secretary of Commerce and the President functions to perform in the enumeration and apportionment process. The Secretary must “take a decennial census of population . . . in such form and content as he may determine,” 13 U. S. C. §141(a), and then must report to the President “[t]he tabulation of total population by States” under the census “as required for the apportionment,” §141(b). The President in turn must transmit to Congress a “statement showing the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed, as ascertained” under the census. ... This past July, the President issued a memorandum to the Secretary respecting the apportionment following the 2020 census. The memorandum announced a policy of excluding “from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status.” … A foundational principle of Article III is that “an actual controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is filed, but through all stages of the litigation.”...As the case comes to us, however, we conclude that it does not—at this time—present a dispute “appropriately resolved through the judicial process.” .. At present, this case is riddled with contingencies and speculation that impede judicial review. The President, to be sure, has made clear his desire to exclude aliens without lawful status from the apportionment base. But the President qualified his directive by providing that the Secretary should gather information “to the extent practicable” and that aliens should be excluded “to the extent feasible.” Any prediction how the Executive Branch might eventually implement this general statement of policy is “no more than conjecture” at this time. ... To begin with, the policy may not prove feasible to implement in any manner whatsoever, let alone in a manner substantially likely to harm any of the plaintiffs here….Everyone agrees by now that the Government cannot feasibly implement the memorandum by excluding the estimated 10.5 million aliens without lawful status. Yet the only evidence speaking to the predicted change in apportionment unrealistically assumes that the President will exclude the entire undocumented population. … Consistent with our determination that standing has not been shown and that the case is not ripe, we express no view on the merits of the constitutional and related statutory claims presented. We hold only that they are not suitable for adjudication at this time. The judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. It is so ordered Lineup: Unknown, but Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent so presumptively 6-3. Dissent (Breyer, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan): The Constitution specifies that the number of Representatives afforded to each State is based on an apportionment of the total population, with each State receiving its proportional share. The Government has announced a policy to exclude aliens without lawful status from the apportionment base for the decennial census. The Government does not deny that, if carried out, the policy will harm the plaintiffs. Nor does it deny that it will implement that policy imminently (to the extent it is able to do so). Under a straightforward application of our precedents, the plaintiffs have standing to sue. The question is ripe for resolution. And, in my view, the plaintiffs should also prevail on the merits. The plain meaning of the governing statutes, decades of historical practice, and uniform interpretations from all three branches of Government demonstrate that aliens without lawful status cannot be excluded from the decennial census solely on account of that status. The Government’s effort to remove them from the apportionment base is unlawful, and I believe this Court should say so. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Per curiam lol, loving cowards
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Per curiam lol, loving cowards Watch this just become the new way the conservative majority does things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
That ruling didn't even get that much attention yesterday. Were they afraid of pissing Trump off?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
ulmont posted:TLDR: Also, lol at ulmont posted:Everyone agrees by now that the Government cannot feasibly implement the memorandum by excluding the estimated 10.5 million aliens without lawful status. Yet the only evidence speaking to the predicted change in apportionment unrealistically assumes that the President will exclude the entire undocumented population.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 11:10
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:Hasn't research suggested California would lose at least one seat over this? It completely depends on how many people the administration can identify. The administration can likely identify everyone in ICE custody. The administration may be able to identify everyone in the DACA program. After that, it's anybody's ballgame. Yes, if they find 10 million, California probably loses a seat. If they only find 50 thousand, meh. FronzelNeekburm posted:Sure, Trump's just going to give up on it now that he has a green light to try it out. They definitely didn't ruin an entire previous SCOTUS case by hiding a mountain of evidence about this precise thing being their whole plan to shift redistricting. As noted in the argument and the opinion, there are serious questions as to who the administration can identify as a non-citizen. ...this administration has not been the most competent at administrative tasks...
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 05:15
|
|
|
ulmont posted:It completely depends on how many people the administration can identify. The administration can likely identify everyone in ICE custody. The administration may be able to identify everyone in the DACA program. After that, it's anybody's ballgame. Yes, if they find 10 million, California probably loses a seat. If they only find 50 thousand, meh. The can and probably will fudge numbers too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 05:47
|
|
|
ICE is notorious for arresting and deporting U.S citizens, though. Their data is suspect when it comes to citizenship
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 06:05
|
|
|
Slaan posted:ICE is notorious for arresting and deporting U.S citizens, though. Their data is suspect when it comes to citizenship My mom is an immigration lawyer and one of her clients is a US citizen (normally she's helping people getting citizenship or other legal status). ICE was too lazy to check his DOB so he got put into removal proceeding due to a previous crime he'd committed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 06:13
|
|
|
"lol come back when you have facts and numbers" is, functionally, punting it to the Biden admin, which is acceptable even aside from the part where the Census Bureau is That's how the Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Dec 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 06:21
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The cause of loss is not relevant; the only question is if Texas can wiggle out of the "if you ask New Mexico to store, storage losses are your problem" clause of the compact. Texas threw a couple of things against the wall, but none stuck. I agree that nothing stuck with the court, but again, the definition of "reservoir losses" itself is only really applicable to evaporative loss, unless you define the reservoir itself as a closed system and not as a greater, interconnected system as the USACE, the EPA, and others typically define it now as. I looked more deeply into the compact language, and "losses" are pretty ambiguous and I don't think the court was about to begin to try and expand upon the concept at all, but if I were Texas, I'd start having water policy staff pushing to negotiate a greater definition for storage losses, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 06:53
|
|
|
If Texas pushes too hard, New Mexico can just not store water, leaving Texas to deal with the excess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 10:45
|
|
|
So about those emoluments cases against Trump that SCOTUS threw out: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-ends-trump-lawsuits-df42ef0eec5fa57edf3e294234051d88 quote:The high court also ordered the lower court rulings thrown out as well and directed appeals courts in New York and Richmond, Virginia, to dismiss the suits as moot now that Trump is no longer in office. Does anyone know if there was any more to this, or just literally 'no longer President, can't sue'? And was this an obvious outcome, or 5-4 shenanigans?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 18:23
|
|
|
Joe Biden's long game to become the worlds richest man. Precedent you can loot this sucker for all it's worth . Enjoy your giant Balkan palace, mr president.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
u brexit ukip it posted:Does anyone know if there was any more to this, or just literally 'no longer President, can't sue'? And was this an obvious outcome, or 5-4 shenanigans? There was no explanation and basically a one-sentence dismissal: quote:20-330 TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S. V. CREW, ET AL.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
I like how they put it as moot when they could still find that he violated it and returned the money. What a shameful way for this to have ended.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
Apparently "moot" means "it's easier to pretend this is all over than to deal with something that might be embarrassing or difficult."
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
I think it's because the relief sought in the underlying litigation was to force the president to divest and cease violating the clause. Since he's not in office anymore, that relief is moot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
So how can you not read that outcome as, 'violate away to your hearts content, stymie any investigations by claiming executive privilege, and then get off scot-free once your term has ended'? How does this not only set a terrible precedent but also be pretty clearly against what the founding fathers intended here? What's even the point of having the clause if the President can just 'lol nah' his way out of it? Mr. Nice! posted:I think it's because the relief sought in the underlying litigation was to force the president to divest and cease violating the clause. Since he's not in office anymore, that relief is moot. Gotcha. This makes sense. Still a terrible precedent but it at least makes legal sense
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
Has there never been a lesser official who lost their office while litigation continued?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:Has there never been a lesser official who lost their office while litigation continued? The Supreme Court already threw out the idea of legal precedent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 19:03
|
|
