Colorado River basin states reach agreement on water cutbacks (Nice: how much, to buy)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

…

You aren't saying anything new here that you haven't said before. Sheesh

But also think a minute Mars, about how many times you and many others here have restated the facts about Prop 13 (one example among many in which topics are repetitive). … it’s all been said … a bazillion times …

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Well, I'm thinking of the things. Here in San Diego, water consumption is way, way lower per Capita than thirty years ago, so we can accommodate more ppl with the same amount of water. The other is that water infrastructure, at least in our region, is being built out so that between local reservoirs, imports, desal, and recycling, supply won't be an issue. Even now, we're all but guaranteed adequate supply through 2045 -- the only problem is that it's really expensive. And that incentivizes drought tolerant plantings. The last thing is that new homes are being built with tiny yards, not much bigger than a patio, so ppl are barely using more water than they would in an apartment. Personal daily water consumption isn't that big compared to landscape and pool water

I'd like to know how fewer lawns there are now than there were 30 years ago. A huge problem with tearing up lawns and replacing them with dry brush, cacti, succulents, etc., is that they do not absorb energy from the sun nearly as well as do lawns. Hence, a city's temperature can increase significantly as a result of the removal of greenscapes, and therefore cause greater strain on the power grid as people demand more use from their A/C. And currently, we do not have anywhere nearly enough solar panels, windmills, hydro-electric, etc., to support more electric use, especially if the Governor expects everybody to use electric cars exclusively. So unless we're planning on opening more coal-fired plants or fossil gas plants...yeah right...then from where do we get the extra electricity (unless we pay an obscene amount to get it from out of state (e.g. the Enron debacle))?

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

There’s no limit to good advice

The real question is: *How many times are others going to insist that the answer to problems is: MORE GROWTH?*

When will you chide them for repeating the same old *grow or die* mantras? Why zero in on me for restating the obvious fact?

You yourself agree and say (bolded above): “there are too many people …”
So, given that acknowledgement of truth, should we just collectively agree to ignore it? ( … at our great peril, I’ll add!)

Okay. I will.

All you who keep repeating yourself over and over again about growth and progressiveness need to just knock it off! No more. We get it!

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

But also think a minute Mars, about how many times you and many others here have restated the facts about Prop 13 (one example among many in which topics are repetitive). … it’s all been said … a bazillion times …

Aw, geez. I was sticking up for you and giving a shout out to others for their repetitiveness and here you go and throw in a whataboutism. I'm really disappointed in you, Tulemutt. I didn't think you stooped to those levels.

/sarcasm and just a little teasing on this fine Friday afternoon. HAGW

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

Okay. I will.

All you who keep repeating yourself over and over again about growth and progressiveness need to just knock it off! No more. We get it!

Aw, geez. I was sticking up for you and giving a shout out to others for their repetitiveness and here you go and throw in a whataboutism. I'm really disappointed in you, Tulemutt. I didn't think you stooped to those levels.

/sarcasm and just a little teasing on this fine Friday afternoon. HAGW

Hahaha. Ah Mars

[Axxlrod]

AG accounts for 90% of all water used in CA. Conserving at the residential level is a fool's errand. If you want to stop showering or watering your lawn because it makes you fell better, then go right ahead and knock yourself out.

I'm not shortening my showers or letting my lawn die. Heck, I'm putting in a pool soon.

Smarter AG water procedures will make a real difference. Also maybe we need to re-think planting thousands of acres of water-thirsty crops like almonds and alfalfa.

I'd also like to see a law making it illegal to send/sell any crop that was grown in CA to another country. Let China grow their own almonds, and Saudi Arabia grow their own alfalfa.

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

There’s no limit to good advice

The real question is: *How many times are others going to insist that the answer to problems is: MORE GROWTH?*

When will you chide them for repeating the same old *grow or die* mantras? Why zero in on me for restating the obvious fact?

You yourself agree and say (bolded above): “there are too many people …”
So, given that acknowledgement of truth, should we just collectively agree to ignore it? ( … at our great peril, I’ll add!)

Too many residents (especially boomers) keep voting in people that think their public sector pensions are sacrosanct. If municipalities were allowed to simply pay out at whatever % funded they were rather than whatever pie in the sky “promised rates” we could actually reduce population over time. As it is though the current public sector requires infinite growth. CA is also opposed to deporting 6% of our population that are illegal and put immense strain on local schools and healthcare facilities.

With birth rates falling globally, populations will flatline and begin to decrease anyway. We just have to be able to deal with it properly by our government.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

Too many residents (especially boomers) keep voting in people that think their public sector pensions are sacrosanct. If municipalities were allowed to simply pay out at whatever % funded they were rather than whatever pie in the sky “promised rates” we could actually reduce population over time. As it is though the current public sector requires infinite growth. CA is also opposed to deporting 6% of our population that are illegal and put immense strain on local schools and healthcare facilities.

With birth rates falling globally, populations will flatline and begin to decrease anyway. We just have to be able to deal with it properly by our government.

You seem to be all over the board on this one, njbiodude. I won't address all your concerns but don't blame boomers for the high pensions some (not all) boomers receive. You can look to the unions for that one. Negotiations made in the 90's guaranteed problems down the line. I mean who in their right mind thinks giving free lifetime healthcare to many government retirees was ever a good idea? Good gig if you can get it. But it bankrupted a couple of cities in CA. They had to change that if they ever wanted to survive. Don't blame voters for this. This is a union problem.

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

You seem to be all over the board on this one, njbiodude. I won't address all your concerns but don't blame boomers for the high pensions some (not all) boomers receive. You can look to the unions for that one. Negotiations made in the 90's guaranteed problems down the line. I mean who in their right mind thinks giving free lifetime healthcare to many government retirees was ever a good idea? Good gig if you can get it. But it bankrupted a couple of cities in CA. They had to change that if they ever wanted to survive. Don't blame voters for this. This is a union problem.

I agree with you in that voters couldn’t totally control pensions. Many involved back room deals between unions and politicians. What should have happened is the investors (taxpayers) should have been present at the negotiations like in the private sector. Because they weren’t though it’s a decent legal case to declare many of these promises void.

That said, some politicians are pro union and some aren’t. In some Republican states teachers unions can’t collectively bargain for example. So voters are partially to blame.

To be fair Jerry Brown did at least enact a law that said pension increases needed to be approved by voters. But the language on the increases is very confusing and many just end up getting approved through trickery.

Pensions are a local problem that affect the functioning of our government. Our declining school quality in the Bay Area, decaying infrastructure, and spiraling housing permitting costs are largely due to pension obligations. The consequences are quite serious if ignored.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

I agree with you in that voters couldn’t totally control pensions. Many involved back room deals between unions and politicians. What should have happened is the investors (taxpayers) should have been present at the negotiations like in the private sector. Because they weren’t though it’s a decent legal case to declare many of these promises void.

I'm sorry but this made me giggle because that's not how contract negotiations work. The public is not privy to those things. That's between management, the union and a representative for the employees, otherwise known as a shop steward. If you aren't familiar with the term, google it.

Everything negotiated in the 90's was legal so there's no case to be had here but the real issue was or is, what does a negotiation for a lucrative contract hold for the future? You can't just look at a couple of years out when you think about these things. You have to look beyond that and the Cadillac benefits, especially healthcare benefits was one of the worst things to happen.

No former employee should work for a company or the government for a period of time, expect to retire at 50 or 55 and have their healthcare premiums paid by their (former) employer for the rest of their life. Especially, if they could end up being retired longer than they worked for said company or government department. The feds are good for this one. They have lifetime healthcare. They never have to pay a penny for it after they retire as many cities, as well. The city of San Jose is a good example of this.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

I'm sorry but this made me giggle because that's not how contract negotiations work. The public is not privy to those things. That's between management, the union and a representative for the employees, otherwise known as a shop steward. If you aren't familiar with the term, google it.

Everything negotiated in the 90's was legal so there's no case to be had here but the real issue was or is, what does a negotiation for a lucrative contract hold for the future? You can't just look at a couple of years out when you think about these things. You have to look beyond that and the Cadillac benefits, especially healthcare benefits was one of the worst things to happen.

No former employee should work for a company or the government for a period of time, expect to retire at 50 or 55 and have their healthcare premiums paid by their (former) employer for the rest of their life. Especially, if they could end up being retired longer than they worked for said company or government department. The feds are good for this one. They have lifetime healthcare. They never have to pay a penny for it after they retire as many cities, as well. The city of San Jose is a good example of this.

Well, cue the *Universal Healthcare megatopic* here? Lol