Arizona to LA: Boycott us, We'll cut your power (health care, certificate, birth)

[18Montclair]

Arizona To Los Angeles: Boycott Us, We'll Cut Your Electricity - cbs2.com (http://cbs2.com/local/arizona.boycott.electricity.2.1702232.html - broken link)

Yikes. The gloves are off I suppose.

[Lifeshadower]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Arizona To Los Angeles: Boycott Us, We'll Cut Your Electricity - cbs2.com (http://cbs2.com/local/arizona.boycott.electricity.2.1702232.html - broken link)

Yikes. The gloves are off I suppose.

Repost!

In any case, before people fly off the handle and start doing things they will later regret, here are the numbers people need to consider:

BEA : Gross Domestic Product by State

Arizona GSP: $247,028,000,000 (population 6,595,778)
California GSP: $1,846,757,000,000 (population 36,961,664)

http://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional..._metro0909.pdf
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA (incl. LA, Riverside, and Oxnard MSAs)
2008 Population: 17,786,419 (48.3% of California's population)
2008 GMP: $866,095,000,000 (46.8% of California's GSP)

San Jose-San Francisco- Oakland, CA CSA (incl. San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Rosa, Vallejo, Santa Cruz, and Napa MSAs)
2008 Population: 7,354,555 (20% of California's population)
2008 GMP: $508,418,000,000 (27.5% of California's GSP)

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MSA
2008 Population: 3,001,072 (8.1% of California's population)
2008 GMP: $169,325,000 (9.1% of California's GSP)

Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Yuba City, CA-NV CSA (incl. Sacramento and Yuba City MSAs)
2008 Population (in CA): 2,376,145 (6.4% of California's population)
2008 GMP: $98,000,000 (5.3% of California's GSP)

The Bay Area itself has 2 times the output than the WHOLE STATE of Arizona, despite having less than a million more people than AZ. San Diego has 68% of the economy of Arizona DESPITE being less than half of the whole state's size in terms of population.

Now, onto the water business:
Sharing Colorado River Water: History, Public Policy and the Colorado River Compact (http://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/arroyo/101comm.html - broken link)

The decision in Arizona v. California resulted in major power shifts, between the states and between the states and the federal government. Colorado River water was apportioned, with California receiving 4.4 maf, Arizona 2.8 maf and Nevada 300,000 af, with each state also awarded all the water in their tributaries. Arizona was a big winner, gaining almost all the advantages it sought in the 1922 compact. A nagging water supply problem was resolved.

By Federal Law, California is allowed 50% of the water in the Colorado River, while Arizona gets 46% of it, and Nevada can get 4%.
Arizona v. California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

It decided that a fair division of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of such mainstream waters would give 4,400,000 acre-feet to California, 2,800,000 to Arizona, and 300,000 to Nevada, and that Arizona and California should each get one-half of any surplus. Congress gave the Secretary of the Interior adequate authority to accomplish this division by giving him power to make contracts for the delivery of water and by providing that no person could have water without a contract.

Straight from the Supreme Court.

Arizona can't cut off anything to California, but it DOES have the power to decrease the amount of water that goes to California from its share of the Colorado River. That's fine, considering that has happened for years because of the rapid growth of Arizona. For years, Arizona sold a lot of its water to California because the population in AZ simply didn't NEED so much water because of its small size. However, in the last 10-15 years, there has been less of a supply coming straight from AZ because they have a bigger population now. This was probably the worst time for them to make such a threat.

Anyways, an increasing share of the water coming to SoCal is coming from Northern California. Unless Arizona wants to claim 100% of the Colorado River, nothing will probably change. Empty threats all around

[Mr. Fantastic]

Yes, Arizona is going to throw away tens of millions of dollars in revenue by not selling power to California. That makes business sense.

This is the equivalent of Popeye's Chicken rejecting black customers.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

Yes, Arizona is going to throw away tens of millions of dollars in revenue by not selling power to California. That makes business sense.

This is the equivalent of Popeye's Chicken rejecting black customers.

how about El Pollo Loco refusing service to anyone caught speaking Spanish?

[ChristieB]

Any kid, legal or not, can go to our public K-12 schools for free.
I think most Americans don't know how easy it is for any kid from anywhere in the world to go to our public K-12 schools for free.
When we moved back to California from overseas, I took my son's passport and birth certificate to the local public elementary school to register him for kindergarten.
The school manager told me that she is not allowed to see such documents. She only needs to see an utility bill with our current address to prove his residency.
I asked her how will she know that my son is legally eligible to go to school here?
She said that it's not her job and nobody is allowed to ask. Anybody can go to public K-12 schools here as long as they live here.
We are paying the taxes to educate all the illegal kids in this country and they are also entitled to all the free services like free meals, free after school programs and free health care.
So I think if the illegal kids couldn't get a free public education in this county, the amount of illegal immigrants would be cut in half right a way.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

Yes, Arizona is going to throw away tens of millions of dollars in revenue by not selling power to California. That makes business sense.

This is the equivalent of Popeye's Chicken rejecting black customers.

Don't you think Arizona might be able to find another buyer of the electricity? Or that perhaps one this is to raise rates if they can contractually?

They can sell electricity to someone else without installing anything.

I'm not sure why the post above talks so much about water. The OP's referenced article concerned electricity.

A summary of Arizona's energy profile:

Energy Information Administration (EIA) | State/Territory Energy Profiles | Energy Data, Information, and Maps

It specifically highlights that AZ supplies a significant amount of electricity to Southern California.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Unless the laws of supply and demand have magically changed, tell me who would buy Arizona's electricity in the amount that California does, which would in turn NOT lead to Arizona's state revenues dropping significantly?

Nevada, home of the Hoover Dam, operates at a surplus year after year.

Texas produces over 40% of the petroleum in the U.S.

Utah is underpopulated and has never suffered chronic power shortages.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

Unless the laws of supply and demand have magically changed, tell me who would buy Arizona's electricity in the amount that California does, which would in turn NOT lead to Arizona's state revenues dropping significantly?

Nevada, home of the Hoover Dam, operates at a surplus year after year.

Texas produces over 40% of the petroleum in the U.S.

Utah is underpopulated and has never suffered chronic power shortages.

I agree that supply and demand haven't suddenly changed. But those same principles might allow AZ to offer to sell electricity to someone else at a lower price.

And the easiest thing AZ could do to **** off LA is raise prices - if their contract makes that possible.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Yes, and that would still lead to lower revenue for Arizona.

Usually when you are selling something, you want to increase your profits, not decrease them.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

I agree that supply and demand haven't suddenly changed. But those same principles might allow AZ to offer to sell electricity to someone else at a lower price.

And the easiest thing AZ could do to **** off LA is raise prices - if their contract makes that possible.

That won't happen. Channel 9 News reported that the city of Los Angeles is partial owner of 2 power companies in Arizona. The Arizona commissioner knows this but opted for an empty bluff instead!