Started By
Message

re: California's Water Problem - Privately Owned by Resnick Family for Profit

Posted on 1/10/25 at 2:18 pm to
Posted by redfish99
B.R.
Member since Aug 2007
18752 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 2:18 pm to
Put Goliath himself Billy Bob on em.
Posted by Galactic Inquisitor
An Incredibly Distant Star
Member since Dec 2013
18452 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 2:23 pm to

quote:

150b/70b = 2.14 yrs, not even close to a decade

Am I missing something here?

The first sentence is talking about San Francisco's residential water consumption. The second sentence is talking about San Francisco's total water consumption, independent of sector.
This post was edited on 1/10/25 at 2:24 pm
Posted by Crimson
Member since Jan 2013
1815 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 2:26 pm to
There’s a lot of blame to go around here - most of it goes to the state and local government.

Poor forestry practices

Lack of investing in water retention despite the highest snowfall in decades recently


Getting rid of dams for snail darters and steelhead.

Expensive DEI initiatives shifting resources from needed projects & elevating adherence to ideology over merit (those that can get the work done competently regardless of ideology, politics, or superficial identify)

Now if you want to put crony capitalism in there then fine. But you have to acknowledge the other issues to.
This post was edited on 1/10/25 at 2:33 pm
Posted by Barbellthor
Columbia
Member since Aug 2015
10975 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 2:59 pm to
Private entities are more efficient and generally better and more inventive than government. There are some basic functions, however, that should belong to government (if for no other reason than those running the function are subject to FOIA, etc. for transparency).

City wide water systems might be one. Prisons are another.
Posted by Harry Boutte
Louisiana
Member since Oct 2024
3796 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 3:12 pm to
quote:

City wide water systems might be one.

Why?
Posted by CharlesLSU
Member since Jan 2007
33272 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 3:20 pm to
There was a desalination project teed up for the San Francisco area a few years ago that would’ve solved a lot of problems. BUT, a progressive env group got in the way and got the project killed.

So many to blame over there.
Posted by Bayou
Boudin, LA
Member since Feb 2005
41702 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 3:44 pm to
Posted by neworleansnotsouthla
Mid-City
Member since Dec 2023
629 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 3:45 pm to
So white people, figures.
Posted by chRxis
None of your fricking business
Member since Feb 2008
26731 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 3:47 pm to
wait, so now capitalism is bad again?

i can't keep up with how often y'all change y'alls minds here...

pick a fricking lane...
Posted by Havoc
Member since Nov 2015
37783 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 3:50 pm to
Mother Jones?
Posted by crazyLSUstudent
391 miles away from Tiger Stadium
Member since Mar 2012
6053 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 3:56 pm to
quote:

There was a desalination project teed up for the San Francisco


Desal isn't a golden ticket. It is energy intensive and creates a highly concentrated salt solution that has to be deposed be either discharging into the ocean or injecting it into the ground.
Posted by ProjectP2294
South St. Louis city
Member since May 2007
75922 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 3:58 pm to
quote:

Desal isn't a golden ticket. It is energy intensive and creates a highly concentrated salt solution that has to be deposed be either discharging into the ocean or injecting it into the ground.


Could the salt by-product be used to treat snowy and icy roads?
Posted by CharlesLSU
Member since Jan 2007
33272 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 4:04 pm to
Ok.

Cost/benefit…….here we are
Posted by ManWithNoNsme
Member since Feb 2022
924 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 4:05 pm to
Good. Burn their house down.
Posted by Shexter
Prairieville
Member since Feb 2014
19223 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 4:05 pm to
quote:

Although the cost factors for sea water desalination are complex, general estimates suggest that the cost of sea water desalination ranges between $5 and $10 per 1,000 gallons. This means that the cost per gallon of seawater desalination is approximately $0.005 to $0.01.

quote:

It cannot be dumped back into the ocean because it's so concentrated it would be toxic to marine wildlife.
This post was edited on 1/10/25 at 4:06 pm
Posted by Penrod
Member since Jan 2011
52487 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 4:17 pm to
quote:


I knew the city that didn't refill their reservoirs, had no water pressure, had hundreds of stolen fire hydrants, didn't remove dry brush or conduct controlled burns, etc... would find a way to blame this on capitalism.

They make it sound like cronyism, not capitalism. How did they get ownership of all of that? If it was by paying fair market value, then fine.
Posted by dallastigers
Member since Dec 2003
9621 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 4:30 pm to
Unless they are driving up food prices as a monopoly, get govt help to grow so large, or waste water I don’t think this is a problem unless California wants to do away with farming. A big farming company using a lot of water doesn’t mean a bunch of smaller farms in its place would use less water. Additional costs of so many smaller farms in farms would drive up prices.

They may have an advantage buying additional water in the open market over other smaller farmers, but that water would still go to farming if other farmers buy it. It also seems like there are other entities in the state that could help direct some of that water to cities.

quote:

That system was largely paid for by the very taxpayers whose water these billionaires hold hostage.
They bought a majority interest. Who did they buy it from? Did the state or country just give it away for free?


For a long time California was getting too large of a supply of water from Lake Mead (and Powell) even as states where the streams, rivers, and run off filing these reservoirs needed more water for their needs.

The state may have to decide whether it wants to keep these agriculture industries or have them shift them to states or countries with more natural water supplies.

Edit: The below would a big question mark on how much company grew by capitalism alone.
quote:

keeping an eye out for policies that could favor the Resnicks coming out of California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office. Newsom survived his recall with the Resnicks as a top donor

If cronyism is involved the state has some officials that need to be removed or jailed.
This post was edited on 1/10/25 at 4:42 pm
Posted by Boomdaddy65201
BoCoMo
Member since Mar 2020
4144 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 4:34 pm to
quote:

I KNEW it was the jooooooooooooos!


Yeah, you would think it may just be an odd twist of fate that their last name is Resnick and that they actually have a long kinship with the land like 5th/6th generation post Oregon trail settlement? Ponderosa style?






It’s so stereotypical it transcends whatever “ism” may offend someone. A Jersey transplant of the lost tribe variety that is greasy dirty in local and state politics, as in he’s the largest contributor to the Californian DNC and has been for decades as well the largest contributor in defense of Gavin Newsom’s recall effort…and of course his family originally immigrated from Ukraine.


Posted by AUFANATL
Member since Dec 2007
5090 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 4:36 pm to
quote:

Could the salt by-product be used to treat snowy and icy roads?



It can be used to harvest lithium and other minerals. In the past there were easier ways to mine lithium, but now that the battery age is upon us, global supplies are being consumed and the future may require us to kill two birds with one stone via desalinization.

Posted by Shexter
Prairieville
Member since Feb 2014
19223 posts
Posted on 1/10/25 at 4:36 pm to
quote:

How did they get ownership of all of that? If it was by paying fair market value, then fine.


TL/DR secret meetings in 1994 that switched water priority to agriculture.

quote:

While 40 million Californians suffer through unprecedented drought, one billionaire couple owns a massive share of the state’s water system, largely seized in a series of secretive meetings two decades ago.

That system was largely paid for by the very taxpayers whose water these billionaires hold hostage.

Urban water systems are desperate for water, but in 2023 they’ll receive just 5% of what they requested from the state. Stewart and Lydia Resnick use 150 billion gallons a year.


quote:

The Resnicks are the biggest farmers in California–as of 2007 they owned four San Francisco’s worth of farmland.


quote:

One important storage facility is the Kern Water Bank, started in 1988. The facility was built with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, which could’ve been a good thing: the people of California would’ve owned the water.

But there were two Californians thirstier than the rest, and they wanted more water: Lynda and Stewart Resnick, and they had a lot of political power


quote:

In 1994 state water officials, water infrastructure contractors, and agricultural landowners with water rights arranged a secretive meeting at a resort in Monterey Bay California.

These groups, a mix of private companies and public agencies, rewrote California’s water laws without any input from voters, taxpayers, or legislators. The new laws, called The Monterey Plus Agreement or The Monterey Amendments were devastating for working Californians and great for agriculture billionaires.


quote:

The original law had “urban preference” a long-standing rule that in times of drought the state water board would give urban areas–where people live–access to state water supplies before agricultural interests. Monterey axed that. That means that in times of drought the water systems for normal Californians would have to buy water from the private companies, because they weren’t getting it from the state.

The new agreement also loosened regulations on “paper water.” That’s water that doesn’t necessarily actually exist anywhere but on paper: the full quantities of water that providers could have, but don’t actually need to have. Today 5x as much water has been promised and sold as actually exists.

And importantly, the meeting changed ownership of the Kern Water Bank. What once belonged to the state was transferred to a few private water contractors. One of which was Westside Mutual, a wholly owned subsidiary of Wonderful Foods. The Wonderful employee who runs Westside, Bill Phillimore, is the chairman of the ‘public’ organization that manages the Kern Water Bank.

Boom. One secret meeting and the Resnicks owned nearly 60% of an important California water resource, built with hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

The new ownership combined with the rules on paper and surplus water meant that during times of drought the Resnicks could sell Kern water back to the state water systems.

They took Californian taxpayers’ water and sold it back to them– both literally as the water supply, and also to grow expensive food like gourmet pistachios and pomegranate juice. They converted the peoples’ water into products many can’t afford.


quote:

But their favorite politician is Senator Diane Feinstein, chair of the Energy and Water subcommittee. She’s a close personal friend of the Resnicks, attending their holiday parties in Aspen and maintaining their financial interests.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram