Chaos as tiered water rates struck down by court (Los Angeles: real estate, foreclosed)

[LuvSouthOC]

California drought: Court rules tiered water rates violate state constitution - San Jose Mercury News

[GoldenZephyr]

Fantastic ruling, water rates shouldn't be profit centers.

However, as is been said, if the government was serious about conserving water, they wouldn't be spending all their energy worried about penalties for showers, lawns, and glasses of water in restaurants. The focus would be on the fact of more water is used for Almonds than all the water used by every business, home and lawn in Los Angeles and San Francisco combined over multiple years.

Since Jerry is welcoming even more almond orchards while droning on constantly about peoples showers, I know he is not serious about the drought, but instead interested in advancing a political agenda and inflicting maximum suffering on the people of California.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by GoldenZephyr

Fantastic ruling, water rates shouldn't be profit centers.

However, as is been said, if the government was serious about conserving water, they wouldn't be spending all their energy worried about penalties for showers, lawns, and glasses of water in restaurants. The focus would be on the fact of more water is used for Almonds than all the water used by every business, home and lawn in Los Angeles and San Francisco combined over multiple years.

Since Jerry is welcoming even more almond orchards while droning on constantly about peoples showers, I know he is not serious about the drought, but instead interested in advancing a political agenda and inflicting maximum suffering on the people of California.

No, it is not about being a profit center. By striking down their ability to charge more based on usage, it means the poor (who use little water on average) as well as responsible conservationists, such as myself, will see a huge increase in rates as rates are adjusted. This is punishment for us for saving water and I resent it. In the end, they will rely on fines.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by GoldenZephyr

Since Jerry is welcoming even more almond orchards while droning on constantly about peoples showers, I know he is not serious about the drought, but instead interested in advancing a political agenda and inflicting maximum suffering on the people of California.

Is this true? Why would he do that?

[GoldenZephyr]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Is this true? Why would he do that?

Ruth, honestly, I was shocked to see that. Here is an article from the Sacramento Bee highlighting the growth of Almond Orchards in the drought.

I honestly don't know why more action hasn't been taken. I mean, just buy out the orchards and plow them under. It would be a cheap and easy way to instantly save an incredible amount of water.

California almond growers to expand orchards, despite drought | The Sacramento Bee The Sacramento Bee

Representatives of the state’s almond farmers defended the decision to expand California’s orchards, saying growers with adequate water supplies are making rational economic decisions based on the price they can get for their crop.

Adequate water, I thought the state had a massive drought? Most of the almond crop is exported, it's a minuscule part of the GDP. Less than 1%

When the governor is going on and on about how the state has no water, we need to plow under ever lawn and take shorter showers, this is allowed to go on unimpeded? Is the goal conservation or just punishing residential users for a lifestyle that Jerry disagrees with?

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by GoldenZephyr

Ruth, honestly, I was shocked to see that. Here is an article from the Sacramento Bee highlighting the growth of Almond Orchards in the drought.

I honestly don't know why more action hasn't been taken. I mean, just buy out the orchards and plow them under. It would be a cheap and easy way to instantly save an incredible amount of water.

California almond growers to expand orchards, despite drought | The Sacramento Bee The Sacramento Bee

Representatives of the state’s almond farmers defended the decision to expand California’s orchards, saying growers with adequate water supplies are making rational economic decisions based on the price they can get for their crop.

Adequate water, I thought the state had a massive drought? Most of the almond crop is exported, it's a minuscule part of the GDP. Less than 1%

When the governor is going on and on about how the state has no water, we need to plow under ever lawn and take shorter showers, this is allowed to go on unimpeded? Is the goal conservation or just punishing residential users for a lifestyle that Jerry disagrees with?

Well, look. This thing with expanding almond farms turns out to be more complex than local growers deciding to put their money into almonds. It turns out that out-of-state investment groups are using almonds as the new investment fad. So I question who these almond growers in the Bee article are. Are they tied to out-of-state investment houses, or are they truly local farmers, whose farms have been in the family for a couple of generations? I find this overall trend of Wall Street taking over entire industries (sub-prime loans, storage unit companies, foreclosed homes nationwide, and now--marginal land through REIT's (Real Estate Investment Trusts) for planting almond groves) to be disturbing. There's no thought to the consequences of these massive investment decisions.

This frenzy of planting is being done by real estate developers and investment groups, including state employees' retirement fund, TIAA-CREF. That's what should be curtailed first. If local, established farmers want to plant almonds, that's one thing (though I don't think they should). But if entities from outside the state or even local investment groups are driving the conversion of marginal land to almond groves, that should be halted. It's misleading to pretend these are decisions being made by family farmers. Someone should look into where Brown has his retirement money invested.

News from The Associated Press

(See the other drought thread for excerpts I posted.)

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

California drought: Court rules tiered water rates violate state constitution - San Jose Mercury News

Wow. In our district, which is a small district that buys water from SFPUD (e.g. Hetch Hetchy System), we've had tiered rates as long as I can remember.

Yes, this ruling is disruptive.

[Bulldogdad]

I washed my trucks on my front lawn last night. Lots of stares fom people driving by and a few comments from the neighbors.

Water Wars coming soon to a water district near you.

[shooting4life]

I think it is a good ruling. Everyone should pay the same rate for water. The government needs to get out of the game of picking winners and losers.

It will be interesting if this will apply to tiered power rates.

[davidt1]

We don't have tiered water rate here yet where I live. My electricity rate is tiered. Everyone pays the same rate. You only get charged more when your usage exceeds a certain amount -- and only for the extra amount. I am OK with it. It forces me to use electricity responsibly so I don't get charged more. What I don't use is available for others to use. If a lot of people use resources conscientiously, the savings add up and resources don't get used so quickly.

The tiered system will help use save water.