- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/11/25 at 9:18 am to Shexter
quote:This math doesn't make sense.
Those crops consume an estimated 150 billion gallons of water a year, two thirds of that on nuts, which would be enough to supply San Francisco’s 875,000 residents for a decade. The Wonderful Co. says the estimate is high, but declined to comment further. For comparison, San Francisco uses about 70 billion gallons annually.
SF uses 70B gallons per year, but Wonderful's 150B gallons per year would supply SF for 10 years?
Posted on 1/11/25 at 9:25 am to wm72
quote:Yes, the author of the article, who says all this occurred "without any input from legislators." Also, the OP.
Is there anyone who believes all the BS isn't created by politicians doing the bidding of billionaires?
Posted on 1/11/25 at 9:29 am to Gravitiger
They bankrolled all these progressives for years but there’s no video about that
Posted on 1/11/25 at 9:29 am to athenslife101
quote:
Is it in public interest that two people own pretty much a monopoly on water?
That's always been a lingering concern with the way Western states govern water and water rights. In Louisiana, if you own the surface, you can drill yourself a water well.
In places like New Mexico, Nevada and California, just because you own a 100 acre piece of land doesn't mean you have the right to drill a water well and utilize that water for yourself, especially if it's freshwater. Brackish, Capitan Reef type stuff like in New Mexico...maybe those rights haven't been all bought up.
LINK
I've heard, but haven't researched to verify, that all the freshwater rights in New Mexico were bought up by the 1940s or 1950s, so since then, if you want to drill a water well on your property and water rights didn't come with your acquisition, you've got to find someone who owns rights in that water district and purchase some from them.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 9:30 am to Gravitiger
quote:
Yes, the author of the article, who says all this occurred "without any input from legislators." Also, the OP.
Shady deals made with governors in the 1990s to acquire tax funded public works (without the input of many legislators)
is precisely
"politicians doing the bidding of billionaires"
Posted on 1/11/25 at 9:32 am to ProjectP2294
quote:
Could the salt by-product be used to treat snowy and icy roads?
Yes. But that bit could be barely a drop in the bucket for regional need. Obviously places in NE United States, Canada, etc. could possibly use that salt as well, but it's just cheaper for those governments to purchase the current route than to pay to have it all hauled from CA, NV, etc.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 9:33 am to wm72
quote:You’re kidding yourself if you don't think legislators were also involved.
Shady deals made with governors in the 1990s to acquire tax funded public works (without the input of many legislators)
is precisely
"politicians doing the bidding of billionaires"
Posted on 1/11/25 at 9:44 am to Gravitiger
quote:
You’re kidding yourself if you don't think legislators were also involved.
Certainly, the "shady" part is that it was governors and likely a limited circle of legislators involved in making the deals.
Not something that was put before all the legislators, notably those who's regions stood more to lose and would have objected or blown the whistle so to speak.
Not sure what you're disagreeing with exactly.
It was "politicians doing the bidding of billionaires"
Posted on 1/11/25 at 9:46 am to wm72
quote:Fair point. My issue was with the over-the-top wording (and nonsensical statistics) in the OP's article, which causes me to question many of the claims it makes.
Certainly, the "shady" part is that it was governors and likely a limited circle of legislators involved in making the deals.
Not something that was put before all the legislators, notably those who's regions stood more to lose and would have objected or blown the whistle so to speak.
Not sure what you're disagreeing with exactly.
It was "politicians doing the bidding of billionaires"
One day this board is all, "Why shouldn't billionaires have political power? They provide so much to the economy." Then the next day it's, "frick these billionaires with all their political power."
Same thing with executive powers. The board's collective stance is wildly inconsistent, depending on who is exercising them.
This post was edited on 1/11/25 at 9:57 am
Posted on 1/11/25 at 9:53 am to DMagic
quote:
They bankrolled all these progressives for years but there’s no video about that
They also bankrolled the Republicans they made the shady deals with in the 1990s so there's no angle. They're equal opportunity employers.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 10:44 am to Shexter
What does this have to do with the fires? Are you arguing that water used for agriculture should have instead been used to keep the ground in LA less arid? I don’t think that’s how water usage and climates work. Did the Resniks deny LA county access to their water rights to help put out the fires? I doubt it. The water bank is hundreds of miles away.
These people aren’t taking water from anyone else. They are using the water rights they acquired for farming. Pure evil I tell you.
Is your point that theirs isn’t the most efficient use of the water? I’m going to need more than an article without citations to accept that.
Do the people of California have a complaint that a publicly built resource has been privatized? I don’t know. How much has their business returned to the people of CA in taxes and jobs? Who else had competing rights that were denied at that meeting? It looks like there were lawsuits that flowed from it, but they have been resolved.
These people aren’t taking water from anyone else. They are using the water rights they acquired for farming. Pure evil I tell you.
Is your point that theirs isn’t the most efficient use of the water? I’m going to need more than an article without citations to accept that.
Do the people of California have a complaint that a publicly built resource has been privatized? I don’t know. How much has their business returned to the people of CA in taxes and jobs? Who else had competing rights that were denied at that meeting? It looks like there were lawsuits that flowed from it, but they have been resolved.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 10:46 am to Shexter
They’re going to need to double up on security every time they are in public now that this story has been out there
Posted on 1/11/25 at 11:40 am to wm72
quote:
They also bankrolled the Republicans they made the shady deals with in the 1990s so there's no angle. They're equal opportunity employers.
Their open secrets political donation page is HEAVILY democrat.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 11:47 am to Shexter
California farms are more important than LA
There I said it.
Also this article is bullshite. There is a literal shite ton of water getting pushed out to the ocean that could be captured and utilized.
There I said it.
Also this article is bullshite. There is a literal shite ton of water getting pushed out to the ocean that could be captured and utilized.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 2:20 pm to Shexter
quote:
California's Water Problem
Democrats
Posted on 1/11/25 at 2:37 pm to ElderTiger
Apropos of nothing, I went to HS with a guy with the last name "Resnick". His dad was an Episcopal minister. The kid was a huge stoner. 
Posted on 1/11/25 at 3:15 pm to Shexter
LA and Sacramento should be taking notes and build their own reservoirs. The Resnicks have laid the blueprint. Implement it for yourselves. Where's the controversy?
Posted on 1/11/25 at 3:52 pm to TT9
Oh sick burn. Yes Fox News is clearly the problem here. We are so close to having this entire fiasco blamed on a group of people and voters that have nothing to do with the ignorance of Progressive voters.
Keep up the good work carrying the water for the idiots that caused this. Dumbass
Keep up the good work carrying the water for the idiots that caused this. Dumbass
Posted on 1/11/25 at 3:54 pm to SuperSaint
quote:
There is a literal shite ton of water getting pushed out to the ocean that could be captured and utilized.
They have a gigantic body of water next to their state that they refuse to utilize due to the Delta Smelt.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News