Corps Strikes Again....

[Darian]

Tristan,.... That's quite a cavalier attitude you show towards those who would be impacted by the proposal.... I'd be willing to bet that if you were one of those people, you wouldn't have the same confidence in your position....

As I've already pointed out, I believe that all of the alternatives to this proposal have not been addressed/considered. The science you refer to appears to address/support only the peripheral canal (modified or otherwise). That being the case, how can you so sure that building the proposed canal is "....the right thing to do"

I believe that I've stated up front that I was offering opinions from my perspective. Also, that the info was summarized as there wasn't enough space to cover all of the issues in this forum. I'm not attempting to write a thesis here.

I do not believe that anything I've stated here or on another forum area related to this topic requires your clarification. So, jumping to conclusions about what I or anyone else does or doesn't understand about any subject (e.g. court decisions, etc.) doesn't really support any of your points/position. Let's try to keep this discussion on an objective basis.

[Darian]

Tristan,.... I'm familiar with the PPIC and their website having used it many times as a source for info in tax policy matters. Lotsa interesting stuff, there. I've read the "preamble" to the report you mentioned with particular attention to the multiple recommendations included. Very interesting stuff but targeted at the delta, itself for potential solutions. IMHO, a geographically limited and very expensive approach. The recommendations do attempt to address "....mitigation...." issues but at what cost....??? One of the basic principles of management warns us not to limit our search for solutions to problems in the area of the problem. I still subscribe to this principle.

When I spoke of alternatives, I was including the entire state as all of us are consumers. Why not more efficient irrigation methods for agri-business, additional surface storage or expanding desalinization facilities for and in SoCal

I realize no alternative is without it's detractors/problems nor will any one of these alternatives will resolve delta water issues by itself. But, we still owe it to the delta to consider less intrusive methods of solving water issues.

In any case, the recommendations in the report address costs associated with the alternatives included but provide no figures. Again IMHO, there's not enough political will or enthusiasm among the public to raise tax revenues to pay for any pf the alternatives. Nor is a massive bond issue a desirable funding vehicle. This state has a less than sterling credit rating from financiers. Especially in view of the fact the more than 40% of the current state annual budget is spent on servicing bonded indebtedness. Special assessment districts would probably not be acceptable as they require the same voting requirement as raising specific taxes....

So, I would say that while we have a common interest in seeing the issues/problems of the delta solved, our outlook on how/when that event will occur is not in synch.

Actually, I agree with your position on the need for immediate action/comprimise but don't hold out much hope for that outcome (given the current polarized political climate).

[OceanSunfish]

I know I appear ignorant to ask. But, WHY isn't the fair market value of water adjusted to it's real value and sold at that price?

The real value includes the price to mitigate and manage the negative impact water exportation is having on our natural resources and ecosystem.

I jump through the roof when I host guests from LA or San Diego, especially during the holidays or summer when our air temps can be quite extreme. All I hear about is how nice the weather is all year around and that I should move, etc. I get asked how I put up with the cold and heat, in other words, the changing seasons. I even get attitude that I am not as smart as they for living in LA or San Diego.

Settlements were built on the principle that there would be food and water readily available. I don't see LA or San Diego as having readily available water. If people chose to live there, they should expect to pay the price for water that is not in ample supply. Same goes for Ag that want to grow things in the dessert, then get billions in Federal subsidies, subsidies intended for "mom and pops", not Ag corporate enterprises.

I could be off base, but I was 'host' again for few days and my patience wears thin.

[Darian]

Not sure that I can answer your question adequately. The simplest answer to why water is sold cheaply instead of at "market value" might be that the feds just want to sell it at that price. Of course, it's much more complex than that but it would take forever to write about and generate a bunch of emotions.

Don't hold it against your friends from LA/SD areas. Maybe they're just trying to "get you goat" (as winterrunron says). San Diego is really a nice place to live/visit.

Anyway, Altho I do have a strong opinion about this, I'm sorry I couldn't give you a better answer to your question.