Not at present, no. But consider the history of ancient Lake Cahuilla before jumping to any conclusions. (-:
http://s970.photobucket.com/user/BorregoWrangler/media/ColDeltaMap.jpg.html
Here’s some discussion with pics and maps:
4 Likes
Ah, that’s interesting. Thanks!
Yeah I’m pretty sure. The course of the Colorado will have shifted a little over the last 50mn years. But the top soil gets laid down during periodic flooding of the valley. The soil in the valley can be used for growing most things. It’s a major produce producer for the US, but also Alfalfa, nuts etc.
1 Like
No, I’m under the impression that California has the same ability as any other state to alter their laws so as to benefit the entire populace and not just a few interests. Other states have sane and modern natural resource laws so I think it’s possible that California could work towards that as well. Or is that asking too much?
10 Likes
In that case, maybe you should STFU, or provide some links or something.
“You assholes don’t know anything! I know everything but I’m too great to have to explain it to the likes of you assholes!”
5 Likes
Oooh. “A valid paraphrase”!
“Not literally, word for word, no.”
Right. It’s not what I wrote, it’s what you imagined was a ‘valid paraphrase’.
If you had a legitimate criticism, you wouldn’t have to ‘paraphrase.’
(Also, you seem awfully concerned with how I spend my time. It’s not up to you, but thanks for caring.)
Yeah, and I literally wrote a whole bunch of stuff between “everyone in this comment section” and “STFU” — stuff that you conveniently elide in your supposed “fair paraphrase”, which changes the meaning of the sentence containing “STFU”,
But, clearly, you need that change to support your interpretation. Otherwise, why bother?
(Wait. WTF am I doing? THIS is exactly the crap I said I had no time for.
So, um, never mind. Just forget I said anything.
As you were. Please let me know when you’ve solved California’s water problem.)
Look, this is all incredibly tedious. Can you just be specific about how all the elided stuff changes the meaning? I mean, this is the fourth time I’ve asked you to do so. All you have to do to prove I’m a big dumb dumb is to explain your original meaning and how it’s clear from the text of what you wrote.
If you don’t, can I just draw the obvious conclusion?
1 Like
No.
Seriously, what I meant is exactly what I wrote.
If you can’t read that for yourself and see the difference between exactly what I wrote and your tendentious paraphrase of what I wrote, I can’t help you.
If the difference weren’t already obvious, you wouldn’t need to ‘paraphrase.’
So I expect that you’ll draw whatever conclusion you prefer no matter what I might say, exactly as you’ve done so far; so no, I don’t think further explication is warranted.
I never actually paraphrased what you wrote. Seriously, go back and read it again.
Given that, maybe you’re not the best person to be lecturing me about reading comprehension.
Your failure to provide a reasonable alternate interpretation leads me to the conclusion that you really were telling everyone to STFU. Other people got the same interpretation. I quoted all your words and none of them appreciably change the meaning. The only imperative – the only request, injunction, exhortion, or command in your statement was for everyone to STFU. There was a conditional on that – people must STFU if they don’t meet your standards of discourse. But since you didn’t state your standards of discourse (you told people what not to do, but you didn’t provide a target), that conditional can’t really change the meaning of the injunction.
With that I’m done. This is a moderation disaster. Sorry in advance @Falcor.
2 Likes
City dwellers pay for treated water. There’s a distinction in there somewhere.
Maybe they could learn from BoingBoing and change it to the ‘mostly wonderful company’
2 Likes
Back on topic, I think the problem is really very simple. It’s all the fault of alfalfa, almonds, evil Agribusiness, and unfairness.
Sorry, I meant to say UNFAIRNESS.
2 Likes
Wow dude. No.
3 Likes
Not quite. Western states and Alaska use “prior allocation” law, which means the first person to put the water to beneficial use (beneficial being defined differently in every single state, but generally speaking it means something a wealthy male of European descent likes doing, or anything Native Americans aren’t doing).
The Eastern USA mostly has riparian law, which is pretty fair if you are OK with individual property ownership and all it implies. Water isn’t scarce in the East, so nobody bothered setting up a crooked system to steal it from the Indians.
I have slightly more than vague comprehension already, but I’d be happy to learn more.
That would be both a free and fair market, and if there’s one thing our Democratic and Republican overlords hate more than each other, it’s a free and fair marketplace, although generally it’s the Republicans that hate fair and the Democrats that hate free. You hippies need to give up on these unworkable pie-in-the-sky solutions, and settle for the lesser evil. The tasty, tasty nuts of lesser evil.
I should probably put sarcasm tags around those last two lines, Poe’s law and all…
4 Likes
Thanks for this. Definitely added to the meager sum of my knowledge on the subject.
1 Like
Mod note: Some of you need to chillax. Breath. And play nice.
4 Likes
I flagged most of @glenblank’s posts because, tbh, they are just trollish “STFU”. The first one was vaguely amusing, in the “tell me more” variety, but then he reiterated that people should just STFU without actually providing any argument whatsoever. That, to me, is pure trolling.
Feeling grateful that journalism isn’t entirely extinct
2 Likes
