Half Moon Bay Review
 
 
 
 
 
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

Spot On, Mr. Kotkin!

I agree with much of what Kotkin has to say about the drought and the oligarchy that now runs California:

Web Link

This fundamentally hypocritical regime remains in place because it works—for the powerful and well-placed.


Comments

I agree with Francis that this is an interesting article and I appreciate his pointing it out. He certainly does seem to be in awe of the progressive policies and actions as implemented by former Gov Pat Brown. He certainly is not praises the business community when he says:

"But the business leadership often seems to be more concerned with how to adjust the status quo to serve privileged large businesses, including some in agriculture, than boosting the overall economy."

The unfortunate facts are that if we have one wet winter next year this whole subject will be ignored.


Yes, it's an interesting article with many valid points. The author bashes both ends of the political spectrum, but it's clear to me that he's an extreme anti-environmentalist. And he uses the term "low information voter" which is a ring tone of extreme conservatives. Yet he himself is severely lacking in information, not having a clue as to what's wrong with large-scale desalinization, and why we (in my opinion at least) can't possibly build enough water storage, and why it's important to save every species. His anti-environmentalism tarnishes the valid points he makes regarding how broken the political system is, particularly in regard to who gets water and from where.

That said, I'm not against building more storage, as long as it doesn't involve damming rivers or flooding scenic sites, or important historical sites as they did in China not all that long ago. It is my understanding that Hetch-Hetchy is a twin valley to Yosemite. If someone were to propose flooding a place like Yosemite in order to provide more water storage for the unsustainable increasing California population, they should just be taken out back and shot.


^^^ And he uses the term "low information voter" which is a ring tone of extreme conservatives. ^^^

You've obviously never watched an episode of "Watters World" on Bill O'Reilly's show. It's as frightening as it is humorous.

^^^ That said, I'm not against building more storage, as long as it doesn't involve damming rivers or flooding scenic sites, or important historical sites as they did in China not all that long ago. ^^^

Those are pretty big caveats that essentially mean you're opposed to more (above ground) storage.


^^^ If someone were to propose flooding a place like Yosemite in order to provide more water storage for the unsustainable increasing California population, they should just be taken out back and shot. ^^^

I think that's what Feinstein wanted to do when Bill Bennet suggested restoring Hetch-Hetchy to its natural state.


So you're saying that there is no place for more above-ground storage other than important historical sites and scenic sites? I guess you would have supported this stupidity? Web Link

I actually know of a place on the Coastside where I think (best guess) it would be practical to build a relatively small dam to create a reservoir somewhere between 5 and 50 acre feet, without any of the problems that I object to. I'm not going to identify it for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the heat I'd take for suggesting it. I don't know whether the landowner would agree to such use, and CCWD's power of eminent domain can't be used against this landowner.


^^^ So you're saying that there is no place for more above-ground storage other than important historical sites and scenic sites? I guess you would have supported this stupidity?^^^

You can see what I wrote, and no, I didn't write that. But I do know that some environmentalists will oppose any storage site (above or below ground) merely because they believe it will be growth-inducing. They will oppose the storage site as well as any facilities needed to utilize that site.

Who knows where you got the idea that I want to dam the Grand Canyon. Perhaps slinging such unwarranted accusations is the only way to defend your views? Or to feel good about yourself? Hard to say. Maybe you write such things without giving it much thought.


Gee, watchdog, you so subtle spark plug (any perceived disrespect not intended) ... would you be referring to the City owned Beachwood property for the 5-50 acre foot potential water storage location?

"I don't know whether the landowner would agree to such use, and CCWD's power of eminent domain can't be used against this landowner." Very clever.

If so, and of course that is mere conjecture, it might be one way to fully recover the cost of that piece of ground over time and would rid those concerned about more homes, more traffic and more issues and fights going forward.

Maybe POST's Wavecrest might have been on watchdog's mind; who knows (other than watchdog)? Ten times more ground for less money!

* Beachwood - 24 acres at $18 Million plus interest ($35 Million) less recovered money ($13 Million)

* Wavecrest - 213 acres at $13 Million, minus the $2.3 Million grant from the Coastal Conservancy for CLT to purchase 50 acres of it - but still $13 Million total cost.


George: The location have I have in mind is not within HMB. It is in a location where the geography would facilitate a reservoir while minimizing construction. When I get a chance I'll go take a look -- it's been a number of years since I've visited the location and I should verify my recollection that there is no scenic issue. However, I seriously doubt that the landowner would agree, but you never know till you ask.

Francis: Please read more carefully. I didn't say that you support damming the Grand Canyon, I inquired whether you would. For your convenience, here's what I wrote:

"So you're saying that there is no place for more above-ground storage other than important historical sites and scenic sites? I guess you would have supported this stupidity? Web Link " Instead of simply denying that you would support it, you get all uppity.


^^^ Please read more carefully. I didn't say that you support damming the Grand Canyon, I inquired whether you would. ^^^

Oh BS. You were implying that I do not treasure world heritage sites such as the Grand Canyon in the belief it would strengthen your argument (which it didn't) and make you feel superior (which may have been the case). Knock it off and stick to the facts. That's how you achieve a reasonable consensus to solve the difficult problems facing this state. A little dose of "ecopragmatism" or "ecomodernism" would also help.

People need water, including those millions of illegal aliens that Jerry Brown and the Democrats -- both beholden to environmentalist groups -- want to settle in our state. A bit ironic, isn't it?


Congress moves to stop a common environmentalist tactic of "death by analysis" for 5 proposed California water storage projects: Web Link

We'll see if the 'bamster signs it, or if he's still beholden to the environmental absolutists.


How about addressing the real water and environmental problem, which is overpopulation due to unmitigated immigration.

From the article: "The failure to capture and store water during times of rain and snow has left our communities in a state of crisis," McCarthy said. "David's amendment holds the government accountable and demands answers to projects that have been in limbo for years."

I know a project that has been in limbo for years. It's called the border fence.


You aren't going to solve California's water problems by solving the immigration problem or by giving state government the authority to regulate the population. And you aren't going to solve California's water problem by blaming Climate Change, either: Web Link


FD, you're slipping. About 1/4 of the statements and claims in that article may be true. That's up from your standard of near zero.


Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium