Imperial shuns sale, roils water picture

Sacramento Bee ^ | December 10, 2002 | Stuart Leavenworth and Dale Kasler

[HoweverComma]

You could safely do away with most of the Clean Water Act verbiage by simply requiring all inlets to be downstream of its associated discharge. The owner of the facility in question would find it much easier to clean up the discharge than strain out the garbage at the inlet.

[Willie Green]

Water supply and wastewater treatment facilities are not always under the same operating authority. Furthermore, it neglects towns whose water source may come from wells, and runoff pollution from other sources. Then you have the existance of natural, local monopolies over water distribution. There would be no competitive pressure for the private supplier to improve water quality.

Frankly, privatization of water supply and treatment facilities is an absurd proposition.

[Ben Ficklin]

MWD/San Diego is ranking the Salton Sea above the rate-payers.

I'm curious as to what water rights the Salton Sea has?

[Amerigomag]

Not once in this article (or any others posted on this forum for that matter) has it ever been suggested that San Diego cut back on its water consumption. Not once.

I'm always amazed at the stark absence of common sense when any governing body gets involved in a public decision.

California, as a state and a society has a long row to hoe if they can't bring themselves to control their growth.

[farmfriend]

The Grange has a desalination plan that we are going to start pushing here very soon. Stay tuned for more info or contact the President of the California State Grange at:

grangeonline.com

[farmfriend]

How would you propose rights to resources be allocated?

There is a whole book on that subject. I suggest you read it, or a least the info on the web site.

[farmfriend]

"Free and Independant States"?

Didn't we kill those in the mid 1800s.

[farmfriend]

If I had that answer I wouldn't be sitting here watching it rain.

See my post #26.

[farmfriend]

They don't want San Diego to cut back. They want to get rid of the farmers.

[Carry_Okie]

At the very least, government involvement is necessary to resolve conflicting claims.

Pardon my consternation, but free markets have a way of resolving competing claims called "pricing."

[Carry_Okie]

Not once in this article (or any others posted on this forum for that matter) has it ever been suggested that San Diego cut back on its water consumption. Not once.

Southern California per-household water consumption is nearly twice what it is in Northern California. There are whole communities down there that don't even have water meters on the homes.

[breakem]

I live in Canyon Lake, between Sun City and lake Elsinore. 5,000+ houses being built around us. No road expansion, no mention of water. Meanwhile, the drought continues.

[breakem]

I'll add, all cities, Moreno Valley to Temecula down I-215 and Corona to Temecula down I-15 the same. New highways only a dream and no water in sight.

[Amerigomag]

They want to get rid of the farmers

Of course you're right. California has one hell of a legacy of getting rid of farmers through misallocation of resources.

First the Owens Valley, followed quickly by the San Fernando Valley and the Riverside Canyon, followed quickly by the Fillmore Valley, then the Santa Clara Valley, and now the Ceuchella and Imperial Valleys. The San Joaquin Valley along the US99 corridor is all but gone to agriculture as is the area east of Sacramento and along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley north of CA152. Next year big chunks of the west side of the San Joaquin Valley will be taken out of production south of CA152 along with the rice farmers in the Sacramento Valley within 10 years (if this article is accurate).

California is losing it's agricultural base because many, including libertarians and progressives on this forum refuse to recognize that control of California's population growth is essential to it's and the nation's well being. We can't keep goin west any longer, as romantic as it sounds

California simply doesn't have the resources to sustain it's population growth without sacraficing it's agricultural production. Buy the time the people of this state have the will to divert their public wealth into the technology to artifically supplemnt those natural resources it will be too late. In the history of our species population control has never prevailed over individual rights.

My observation is that gentrification will be the only economic mechanism to control the growth of California and the liberals will fight that tooth and nail. Beside, does it matter if the bastard who just built his house in the middle of what used to be a productive orchard, vineyard or field is rich or poor?

[Ben Ficklin]

Its a lousy deal because the environmentalists and the Salton Sea changed the whole crux of the water transfer.

[Carry_Okie]

I would go further than that, to the definition of water in the California Constitution as a "Public Good." I contend that such a definit is to socialize control of nearly all land use. It is thus also a violation of both the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the guarantee to the people of a republican form of government found in Article IV of the US Constitution.

[B4Ranch]

When you have a community that washes their cars twice a day, water use is going to be quite high.

[JoeSixPack1]

I used to haul lettuce (at least I remember it as lettuce) back to the east coast from the largest lettuce farm I have ever seen located just outside of Coachilla. Is it still there? Is the truck parking lot still a mile long? :-)

[Carry_Okie]

It's the driveway washing I can do without.
They can learn to use a broom.