USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

«‹›797 »

Dull Fork: Mar 22, 2009

Fart Amplifier posted:

Nobody who needs to hear this is going to believe it.

Seeing is believing. Why trust cops' reporting on it, when releasing them publicly will save us from debating about someone's opinion on what was written.

Edit for poor snipe:
https://apnews.com/article/school-shooting-virginia-newport-news-917b225fad63620c5280732b5fc6176c

What do posters think about such practices? I think in general, a gun owner should be responsible for crimes done with their gun, if they did not secure it properly.

Dull Fork fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Apr 11, 2023

# ? Apr 11, 2023 18:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 12:15

the_steve: Nov 9, 2005; We're always hiring!

Dull Fork posted:

Seeing is believing. Why trust cops' reporting on it, when releasing them publicly will save us from debating about someone's opinion on what was written.

Because if it's not what they want to hear, plenty of people will ignore it or claim it's false flag or otherwise deny it.

See: Literally every time a RedMAGA goes off on a shooting after leaving a lifelong paper trail of proud republicanism and plenty of video manifestos clearly explaining that he is going to murder people for Trump because Trump said it was good and necessary to do.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 18:49

Dull Fork: Mar 22, 2009

the_steve posted:

Because if it's not what they want to hear, plenty of people will ignore it or claim it's false flag or otherwise deny it.

See: Literally every time a RedMAGA goes off on a shooting after leaving a lifelong paper trail of proud republicanism and plenty of video manifestos clearly explaining that he is going to murder people for Trump because Trump said it was good and necessary to do.

I mean... sure you won't make the nutters open their eyes. But you're not publicizing it for those who will never change their mind no matter the evidence, and for those who aren't nuts, now they have actual evidence to use as a counter argument to those conspiracy theories. Really seems like the superior way to handle manifestos. Scrambling to hide anything a shooter has said or done will just result in a Streisand effect imo.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 18:53

Young Freud: Nov 26, 2006

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

It basically was.

The private messages they sent to their friend the morning of the shooting used a different name (Aiden), they had "he/him" on social media, and one of their friends said they were.

The shooter also has a Furaffinity account under the Aiden name. There was also a label on their AR that said "Aiden".

# ? Apr 11, 2023 19:01

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

the_steve posted:

Because if it's not what they want to hear, plenty of people will ignore it or claim it's false flag or otherwise deny it.

See: Literally every time a RedMAGA goes off on a shooting after leaving a lifelong paper trail of proud republicanism and plenty of video manifestos clearly explaining that he is going to murder people for Trump because Trump said it was good and necessary to do.

Thank you for specifying "red".

Literally every time I see the term "MAGA" i'm so confused as to whether it could be red or blue and I have no idea and have to ask follow-ups questions. It's impossible to tell.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 19:13

PhazonLink: Jul 17, 2010

tbf, theres also white hats.

also dont forget the taticool black hats with blue lives matter poo poo.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 19:39

cr0y: Mar 24, 2005

I never know if I should post these here or in the trump legal thread but whatever.

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1645858419461455872?t=Fp7H-sw4ApdoDvU8UCzaSw&s=19

Here is the legal complaint
https://t.co/eV632TizOS

cr0y fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Apr 11, 2023

# ? Apr 11, 2023 19:41

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

The various southwest states that get their water from the Colorado River have failed to reach an agreement on a water reduction and sharing plan.

For the first time ever, the federal government is stepping in and forcing a water reduction and sharing plan on them.

The big disputes that the states can't agree on are:

- All of them, except California, want to cut water for California agriculture to preserve it for residential and agricultural uses in other states.
- California wants Arizona to take the cuts and basically told them to start using water more efficiently and force water rationing for lawns and other residential uses.

California says that they implemented water restrictions, so they shouldn't get the cuts and the other states need to be more efficient. The California agricultural industry would be harmed too much and is worth more than inconveniencing Arizona residents.

The other 6 states all say that California uses the most water and cutting the water elsewhere would impact residential water use - and they don't want to tell people how to use their water or enforce rules to reduce water usage. Large cuts could also impact drinking water supplies in Arizona and Arizona doesn't want to revamp their entire state infrastructure just to save California agriculture. They also argue that the cuts would hit native and tribal lands out in rural areas of Arizona the hardest.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1645855286110953474

quote:

WASHINGTON � After months of fruitless negotiations between the states that depend on the shrinking Colorado River, the Biden administration on Tuesday proposed to put aside legal precedent and save what�s left of the river by evenly cutting water allotments, reducing the water delivered to California, Arizona and Nevada by as much as one-quarter.

The size of those reductions and the prospect of the federal government unilaterally imposing them on states have never occurred in American history.

Overuse and a 23-year-long drought made worse by climate change have threatened to provoke a water and power catastrophe across the West. The Colorado River supplies drinking water to 40 million Americans as well as two states in Mexico, and irrigates 5.5 million agricultural acres. The electricity generated by dams on the river�s two main reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, powers millions of homes and businesses.

But the river�s flows have recently fallen by one-third compared with historical averages. Levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powell are so low that water may soon fail to turn the turbines that generate electricity � and could even fall to the point that water is unable to reach the intake valves that control its flow out of the reservoirs. If that happened, the river would essentially stop moving.

The Biden administration is desperately trying to prevent that situation, known as deadpool. But it faces a political and ethical dilemma: How to divvy up the cuts required.

The Interior Department, which manages the river, released a draft analysis Tuesday that considered three options.

The first alternative was taking no action � a path that would risk deadpool. The other two options are making reductions based on the most senior water rights, or evenly distributing them across Arizona, California and Nevada, by reducing water deliveries by as much as 13 percent beyond what each state has already agreed to.

If changes were based on seniority of water rights, California, which among the seven states is the largest and oldest user of Colorado River water, would mostly be spared. But that would greatly harm Nevada and force disastrous reductions on Arizona: the aqueduct that carries drinking water to Phoenix and Tucson would be reduced almost to zero.

�Those are consequences that we would not allow to happen,� Tommy Beaudreau, the deputy secretary for the Interior Department, said in an interview on Monday.

Arizona and Nevada are both important swing states for President Biden, if he decides to run again next year. Both states also have Senate seats valuable to Democrats that will be on the ballot in 2024.

Chuck Coughlin, a political consultant who worked for former Republican governor Jan Brewer, said that if the Biden administration limits the pain imposed on Arizona, he had �no doubt� it would benefit Mr. Biden politically.

Another challenge with letting the cuts fall disproportionately on Arizona: Doing so would hurt the Native American tribes that rely on that water, and whose rights to it are guaranteed by treaty. Governor Stephen Roe Lewis of the Gila River Indian Community, which is entitled to a significant share of Colorado River water, said the goal should be �a consensual approach that we can all live with.�

Spreading the reductions evenly would reduce the impact on tribes in Arizona, and also help protect the state�s fast-growing cities. But it would hurt Southern California�s agriculture industry, which helps feed the nation, as well as invite lawsuits. The longstanding legal precedent, often called the law of the river, has been to allocate water based on seniority of water rights.

The draft analysis did not formally endorse any option; a final analysis is expected this summer, and it could include still other approaches.

But Mr. Beaudreau said he was �pretty comfortable� that allocating cuts evenly would let the department meet its goals � preventing water levels in Lake Mead and Powell from falling below critical levels, protecting health and safety, and not exceeding the department�s legal authority.

He defended the government�s willingness to depart from longstanding seniority rules about water rights, arguing that the shocks of climate change couldn�t have been predicted when those rights were agreed to decades ago.

The proposal marks a new and painful phase in America�s efforts to adapt to the decades-long drought in the West. Until now, the federal government has responded to drought primarily by paying farmers, cities and Native tribes to voluntarily use less water.

The Interior Department has accelerated that approach, providing hundreds of millions of dollars for water conservation along the Colorado. But it�s unlikely to be enough.

Mr. Beaudreau said he would rather that the states that rely on the Colorado reach an agreement among themselves, so that the federal government doesn�t have to impose reductions. In addition to Arizona, California and Nevada � the so-called lower basin states, which get their Colorado River water primarily from Lake Mead � that group includes Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, which draw water directly from the river system.

The federal government has the legal authority to impose cuts only on the lower-basin states that rely on water released from Lake Mead and Lake Powell. As a result, the draft analysis is focused on how to distribute cuts among those three states.

Recent experience has shown an agreement between all seven states to be a tall order.

Last summer, the water level in Lake Mead sank to its lowest ever. The department gave states two months to agree on a plan for reducing their use of Colorado River water by about 20 to 40 percent of the river�s entire flow. The states failed to agree; the federal government took no action.

Last fall, the department again asked the states to come up with a plan. In January, six of the states � all but California � reached an agreement: They proposed that the bulk of the cuts come from California.

California, in response, offered its own plan: The bulk of the cuts should come from Arizona.

Since then, the states have continued negotiating, without reaching a deal. The Interior Department made clear on Tuesday that it would still welcome an agreement among the states, which it could study in the final assessment due out this summer.

In a statement, JB Hamby, chairman of the Colorado River Board of California, said the state �remains committed to developing a seven-state consensus.�

Two things may have increased the odds of states reaching an agreement, according to Sharon Megdal, director of the University of Arizona�s Water Resources Research Center.

First, an unusually wet winter has reduced the scale of the cuts required to avoid deadpool. But Dr. Megdal stressed that a reprieve is only temporary; one more bad winter �could put us back in really serious jeopardy.�

The second reason a deal among the states may now be within reach, Dr. Megdal said, is that after months of talking, the federal government finally appears ready to act.

�They�re showing that they will tell the states what to do,� she said. �It will now be up to the states to say, well, we have a better idea � and here it is.�

Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Apr 11, 2023

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:20

Blindeye: Sep 22, 2006; I can't believe I kissed you!

gently caress lawns. Arizona lawns are cursed as gently caress and should be destroyed.

Any Southwest lawns. And torch the golf courses.

Edit: also gently caress CA farms making poo poo like rice that is unsuited to the climate.

I'm sure we'll see some real hot takes from this in the coming months but this is going to be the new normal, isn't it?

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:33

CuddleCryptid: Jan 11, 2013; Things could be going better

Lawns are a waste of water but I'm going to come down on the "gently caress california" side of this because they keep acting like they're entitled to all the water in the nation, including the Great Lakes.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:39

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

They're all just hypocrites pointing the finger. They've all been incredibly wasteful with the water. I do expect California will get more provisions since the ability to produce and export luxury agricultural goods will take precedent over Arizona lawns.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:43

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

CuddleCryptid posted:

Lawns are a waste of water but I'm going to come down on the "gently caress california" side of this because they keep acting like they're entitled to all the water in the nation, including the Great Lakes.

They might actually be literally entitled it:

quote:

Spreading the reductions evenly would reduce the impact on tribes in Arizona, and also help protect the state�s fast-growing cities. But it would hurt Southern California�s agriculture industry, which helps feed the nation, as well as invite lawsuits. The longstanding legal precedent, often called the law of the river, has been to allocate water based on seniority of water rights.

quote:

If changes were based on seniority of water rights, California, which among the seven states is the largest and oldest user of Colorado River water, would mostly be spared.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:43

GhostofJohnMuir: Aug 14, 2014; anime is not good

wait, am i misunderstanding, or does arizona not have any sort of water restrictions in place?

fake edit: wait none of the other states in the southwest have water restrictions? that can't be right, that's loving insane

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:44

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

gently caress all of them, IMHO.

Ban golf in Arizona, ban almonds in California. They're all acting like petulant children and they need to have their toys taken away.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:44

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Gumball Gumption posted:

They're all just hypocrites pointing the finger. They've all been incredibly wasteful with the water. I do expect California will get more provisions since the ability to produce and export luxury agricultural goods will take precedent over Arizona lawns.

According to the article, the feds are looking at dividing the cuts evenly to somewhat spare Nevada and Arizona for political reasons.

California's proposal to put almost all the cuts on Arizona is also not just about lawns, but all "residential" use in Arizona. It would give them a very narrow margin for drinking water and washers/dishwashers/other appliances that use water. If they have an unexpected major drought, then they could be in trouble. California is basically telling them to get more efficient with their water use and they can expand their narrow margin to give themselves more cushion/buffer.

Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Apr 11, 2023

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:46

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

Water rights are one of those things that completely obliterate the common white-picket-fenced castle understanding of property law and when the rubber hits the road in the southwest a lot of people who only thought of things like commute times and good schools are going to have big shocks about the life they chose.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:46

GhostofJohnMuir: Aug 14, 2014; anime is not good

if our lovely half measures to deal with this crisis are somehow significantly better than everyone else in this slow motion train wreck i'm going to scream

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:47

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

wait, am i misunderstanding, or does arizona not have any sort of water restrictions in place?

fake edit: wait none of the other states in the southwest have water restrictions? that can't be right, that's loving insane

Arizona has no water restrictions of any kind statewide. Neither does Nevada.

But, Vegas and some Arizona cities do.

That is part of California's complaint and why they want to force Arizona to make the cuts: California agriculture might not be the most water efficient, but it is an important industry and California has taken steps to reduce residential water usage, so California agriculture shouldn't suffer before they make Arizona get more efficient first.

Arizona obviously does not like that and is pushing the "people need water over agriculture" argument. Arizona has plans for some restrictions if they get their water cut, but they have not implemented any yet.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:50

Oxyclean: Sep 23, 2007

CuddleCryptid posted:

Lawns are a waste of water but I'm going to come down on the "gently caress california" side of this because they keep acting like they're entitled to all the water in the nation, including the Great Lakes.

idk, when Cali has already made restrictions it feels a bit unfair for everyone else to go "well we don't wanna"

but maybe Cali should have to make more concessions. Just seems silly for them to be expected to make more if noone else is currently is with excuses like "we dont want to tell people to water their lawn less"

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:51

Mooseontheloose: May 13, 2003

PT6A posted:

gently caress all of them, IMHO.

This is where I stand on it, they all kinda suck in their own way about this and quite frankly could all be doing more.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:52

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Dull Fork posted:

I mean... sure you won't make the nutters open their eyes. But you're not publicizing it for those who will never change their mind no matter the evidence, and for those who aren't nuts, now they have actual evidence to use as a counter argument to those conspiracy theories. Really seems like the superior way to handle manifestos. Scrambling to hide anything a shooter has said or done will just result in a Streisand effect imo.

This seems a bit inconsistent here. You say that the people who believe the conspiracy theories are "nutters" who "will never change their mind no matter the evidence", but then you suggest that the evidence is needed as a counterargument to those conspiracy theories. But if the only people who believe the conspiracy theories are unconvinceable, then there's not really any point in lining up counterarguments.

And the Streisand Effect is what happens when someone tries to hide information that's already publicly available.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:55

Sax Mortar: Aug 24, 2004

All grass lawns should be abolished and replaced with local vegetation.

I'm also going to take advantage of this and say all HOAs should be abolished, because they're probably involved in the fact that too much water is used to maintain stupid "neighborhood standards" of lawncare and such.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:55

Push El Burrito: May 9, 2006; Soiled Meat

I just moved to AZ and holy poo poo yeah the golf courses are ridiculous. If you want one here it should be all fake grass.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:55

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

According to the article, the feds are looking at dividing the cuts evenly to somewhat spare Nevada and Arizona for political reasons.

California's proposal to put almost all the cuts on Arizona is also not just about lawns, but all "residential" use in Arizona. It would give them a very narrow margin for drinking water and washers/dishwashers/other appliances that use water. If they have an unexpected major drought, then they could be in trouble. California is basically telling them to get more efficient with their water use and they can expand their narrow margin to give themselves more cushion/buffer.

I mean, also gently caress California, but Phoenix is a monument to man's hubris.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:56

Sax Mortar: Aug 24, 2004

Push El Burrito posted:

I just moved to AZ and holy poo poo yeah the golf courses are ridiculous. If you want one here it should be all fake grass.

Golf courses that exist in deserts or regions that regularly have droughts shouldn't exist unless it's fake grass.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 20:59

CuddleCryptid: Jan 11, 2013; Things could be going better

Oxyclean posted:

idk, when Cali has already made restrictions it feels a bit unfair for everyone else to go "well we don't wanna"

but maybe Cali should have to make more concessions. Just seems silly for them to be expected to make more if noone else is currently is with excuses like "we dont want to tell people to water their lawn less"

Yeah, they all should be making concessions. Arizona shouldn't be trying to make massive green suburbs and farms out in the desert, it's just not practical or effective. It's just annoying that every time there is a drought, fire, or a few days without rain in California we start getting people cawing about how they need more fresh water shipped in by any means necessary.

I'm not surprised California is trying to get as many concessions as they can, though, since if push came to shove the answer to who can get the most water out of the Colorado River is "whoever is upstream", regardless of treaties.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 21:00

Lumpy: Apr 26, 2002; La! La! La! Laaaa!; College Slice

Gerund posted:

Water rights are one of those things that completely obliterate the common white-picket-fenced castle understanding of property law and when the rubber hits the road in the southwest a lot of people who only thought of things like commute times and good schools are going to have big shocks about the life they chose.

Given the clamor the get those people to vote for them, politicians will ensure they never have to suffer any consequences for their selfishness.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 21:00

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Jaxyon posted:

I mean, also gently caress California, but Phoenix is a monument to man's hubris.

Peggy Hill isn't always right, but occasionally she gets some wood on the ball.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PYt0SDnrBE

# ? Apr 11, 2023 21:02

Mizaq: Sep 12, 2001; Monkey Magic; Toilet Rascal

CuddleCryptid posted:

Yeah, they all should be making concessions. Arizona shouldn't be trying to make massive green suburbs and farms out in the desert, it's just not practical or effective.

Wait a minute, where do you think Califnoria�s farms are located at? What aspect of farming in the southwest is not effective? Where is a more effective area for farming produce in the United States?

Not talking about nuts either.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 21:13

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Relatively minor news, but the 2024 DNC will in Chicago.

Chicago and Milwaukee were the finalists. The RNC is doing their 2024 convention in Milwaukee, so this sadly means there won't be the funny situation of dueling conventions in downtown Milwaukee.

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1645802766940651522

# ? Apr 11, 2023 21:20

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Relatively minor news, but the 2024 DNC will in Chicago.

Chicago and Milwaukee were the finalists. The RNC is doing their 2024 convention in Milwaukee, so this sadly means there won't be the funny situation of dueling conventions in downtown Milwaukee.

Go figure, Dems in downtown Chicago while Republicans post up in a Chicago suburb.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 21:26

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

lawns are a red herring

they're a particularly visible and annoying red herring, but correctly abolishing every green lawn (and every golf course) in Phoenix wouldn't move the needle much

it's agriculture that's the problem

# ? Apr 11, 2023 21:29

Judgy Fucker: Mar 24, 2006

Google Jeb Bush posted:

lawns are a red herring

they're a particularly visible and annoying red herring, but correctly abolishing every green lawn (and every golf course) in Phoenix wouldn't move the needle much

it's agriculture that's the problem

Got data on that?

# ? Apr 11, 2023 21:30

Squibbles: Aug 24, 2000; Mwaha ha HA ha!

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Arizona has no water restrictions of any kind statewide. Neither does Nevada.

But, Vegas and some Arizona cities do.

That is part of California's complaint and why they want to force Arizona to make the cuts: California agriculture might not be the most water efficient, but it is an important industry and California has taken steps to reduce residential water usage, so California agriculture shouldn't suffer before they make Arizona get more efficient first.

Arizona obviously does not like that and is pushing the "people need water over agriculture" argument. Arizona has plans for some restrictions if they get their water cut, but they have not implemented any yet.

lolling at the city of Phoenix:
https://www.phoenix.gov/waterservices/resourcesconservation/drought-information/climatechange/water-supply-q-a

I don't know anything about the city but some of this sounds awfully far fetched (planning 50-100 years into the future for their water??

quote:

How can Phoenix 's water supply be so good, when I keep hearing about drought and other areas that are considering water restrictions?

Phoenix has had a hundred years of sure-handed water management. Extremely wise planning for drought in the desert and the fact that we have several water sources has kept Phoenix way ahead of the drought curve for decades. Phoenix diversified its water portfolio long ago and amended the city code to promote reuse of water and water conservation

Why doesn't Phoenix do something about golf courses and others who use a lot of water?

Golf courses and many other businesses, not only are vital to our economy, but they use some of the most highly advanced watering systems available. After all, they need to look out for their bottom line. Additionally, many Valley golf courses use non-potable water, such as non-drinkable well water and reclaimed water, which is highly treated wastewater, to water their turf areas. Golf courses are an asset that contributes heavily to the draw for tourism in the Valley, which, in turn, creates jobs and helps keep the economy healthy. In total, golf course water use constitutes less than three percent of total water delivered by the city of Phoenix .

Professional turf managers use real-time data to assess how much moisture is lost from turf areas each day and how much is put back. That same grass management data is available to all citizens. The Arizona Republic newspaper reports on water needs daily on the weather page, and there is a website to help you plan watering schedules for your lawn and plants. You can create a personal lawn watering guide by visiting the AZMET website. There also are a variety of materials available through the water conservation office which you can request electronically or by calling us at (602) 261-8367.

In the future, a drought surcharge could be imposed to charge people according to the amount of water they use each month.

Why should I save water when my neighbors and businesses use so much?

Water conservation is everyone's individual responsibility. It is true that there may be those who may not respect the fact we live in a desert and that was is a precious resource, we can only hope that eventually people will take water conservation advice to heart and do their part.

I don't even live in the desert, why should I save water?

If you live anywhere in Phoenix or the Valley, you live in the desert. So, please, simply think about water every time you use it...and use it responsibly.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 21:31

Rappaport: Oct 2, 2013

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Relatively minor news, but the 2024 DNC will in Chicago.

Aww poop, the tweet already made the joke about 1968 I wanted to make.

Good year though.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 21:33

CuddleCryptid: Jan 11, 2013; Things could be going better

quote:

I don't even live in the desert, why should I save water?

If you live anywhere in Phoenix or the Valley, you live in the desert. So, please, simply think about water every time you use it...and use it responsibly.

I've decided that specifically this hypothetical question asker and all their neighbors are getting their water rights removed, since they apparently live in such lush greenery that they forgot they are in the *Arizona desert*. Just go full Immortan Joe on them.

Your metro area is called The Valley Of The Sun.

CuddleCryptid fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Apr 11, 2023

# ? Apr 11, 2023 21:35

Judgy Fucker: Mar 24, 2006

Maybe letting seven million people live in Arizona was a mistake

# ? Apr 11, 2023 21:38

Sax Mortar: Aug 24, 2004

Google Jeb Bush posted:

lawns are a red herring

they're a particularly visible and annoying red herring, but correctly abolishing every green lawn (and every golf course) in Phoenix wouldn't move the needle much

it's agriculture that's the problem

I mean I'm not saying it'll solve every problem. I'm just saying it's contributing to the problem in multiple ways, one of which is a continuing attitude of FYGM by all the people and neighborhoods who need a shiny green yard of real grass in 100+ degree weather.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 21:39

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Judgy Fucker posted:

Got data on that?

about 20% of arizona water use is residential: https://new.azwater.gov/conservation/public-resources#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20each%20Arizona%20resident,%2C%20washing%20cars%2C%20etc.)

navigating the state website is proving more annoying than i want to deal with at the moment, but this is an arizona municipal water association chart:

that seems to jive well enough with azwater.gov's "Up to 70 percent of that water is used outdoors (watering plants, swimming pools, washing cars, etc.) "

so if we go with the 70% max number, and abolish absolutely all of it, that's what, a 15% reduction in arizona water use?

That's pretty significant, but that still leaves 85%.

Sax Mortar posted:

I mean I'm not saying it'll solve every problem. I'm just saying it's contributing to the problem in multiple ways, one of which is a continuing attitude of FYGM by all the people and neighborhoods who need a shiny green yard of real grass in 100+ degree weather.

i'm extremely firmly in favor of moving towards non-grass / local-plant lawns, it just wouldn't resolve the colorado river shortage; that needs to be done through agriculture limitations (or california destroying the other six states)

# ? Apr 11, 2023 21:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 12:15

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Google Jeb Bush posted:

lawns are a red herring

they're a particularly visible and annoying red herring, but correctly abolishing every green lawn (and every golf course) in Phoenix wouldn't move the needle much

it's agriculture that's the problem

That last time I was in Phoenix it was stunning how few lawns and grass there was.

I mean golf is hosed up. But as far as houses and parks go not really much grass.

# ? Apr 11, 2023 21:41

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

«‹›797 »