7 ms·

> California's infrastructure was built to serve a population of 20m but it is currently at 40m and rising with no efforts despite funding in place to increase

> California's infrastructure was built to serve a population of 20m but it is currently at 40m and rising with no efforts despite funding in place to increase water storage and service, just bleating about 'droughts'.... The climate anxiety crowd would like you to think water is 'running out' but the reality is just spectacular mismanagement incompetence. And the climate change deniers would like you to think that money that wasn't appropriated in 2018 still isn't appropriated in 2023. https://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/P1Program.aspx?ProgramAllocationPK=606&Program=Water%20Storage%20Investment%20Program&ProgramPK=451&PropositionPK=48 https://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/P1Program.aspx?P...

olivermarks 4y ago
Why would 'climate change deniers' think that money that wasn't appropriated in 2018 still isn't appropriated in 2023? You'd think people would just want the more reliable water supply they voted for regardless of their beliefs...
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  > Why would 'climate change deniers' think that money that wasn't appropriated in 2018 still isn't appropriated in 2023? You tell me. I can think of two possible reasons. Either they don't know how to read well, leading to both their climate change denialism and a submission headline that claims the money isn't being spent based on an article written in 2018, or they can read and understand that humans are causing the climate to change rapidly with catastrophic results and that the money is being spent but prefer to mislead like Exxon, API, Shell, and Total.
  - olivermarks 4y ago
    'humans are causing the climate to change rapidly with catastrophic results and that the money is being spent but prefer to mislead like Exxon, API, Shell, and Total.' I think you need to calm down a bit here. The money still isn't being spent on water infrastructure five years after the 2018 approval vote. How is Exxon, API, Shell, and Total misleading California voters over water infrastructure?
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      > The money still isn't being spent on water infrastructure I gave you a link showing that it is being spent. All of it. The last project is scheduled to be completed in 2025. The article you posted is five years out of date. > How is Exxon, API, Shell, and Total misleading California voters over water infrastructure? My first explanation sounds more likely now. They were misleading about climate change. As I pointed out in my first comment, you blamed the "'drought'" on climate alarmists because you are a climate change denier just like these companies, complaining about electrification in your comment history as if its disadvantages are anywhere near as bad as climate change. You pretend (or simply believe out of lack of research ability) the drought is due to population increases instead of due to climate change even though urban and agricultural water usage has steadily declined since 1995. https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/
      - olivermarks 4y ago
        Your link is to snails pace bureaucratic permitting and environmental projects 'in order to proceed with construction phase of reservoir expansion' five years later. The oil companies have zero to do with this, while 'climate change' has little relevance to increasing water storage.
        olivermarks 4y ago
        Here's an article from today. https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/california-water-storage-17719807.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/california-water... Sadly you were completely wrong @lern_too_spel, and as you will see there is no 'climate change denier' rhetoric, just a need for more water storage. “We’re in a climate emergency and we need to start acting with some urgency here,” said Adrian Covert, senior vice president of public policy for the Bay Area Council, which advocates for businesses in the Bay Area. “When you’re talking about storage projects and dams, they are going to last 100 years and you want to get it right and caution is appropriate. At the same time, you have to deliver results.”

olivermarks 4y ago

Why would 'climate change deniers' think that money that wasn't appropriated in 2018 still isn't appropriated in 2023? You'd think people would just want the more reliable water supply they voted for regardless of their beliefs...

lern_too_spel 4y ago
> Why would 'climate change deniers' think that money that wasn't appropriated in 2018 still isn't appropriated in 2023? You tell me. I can think of two possible reasons. Either they don't know how to read well, leading to both their climate change denialism and a submission headline that claims the money isn't being spent based on an article written in 2018, or they can read and understand that humans are causing the climate to change rapidly with catastrophic results and that the money is being spent but prefer to mislead like Exxon, API, Shell, and Total.
- olivermarks 4y ago
  'humans are causing the climate to change rapidly with catastrophic results and that the money is being spent but prefer to mislead like Exxon, API, Shell, and Total.' I think you need to calm down a bit here. The money still isn't being spent on water infrastructure five years after the 2018 approval vote. How is Exxon, API, Shell, and Total misleading California voters over water infrastructure?
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    > The money still isn't being spent on water infrastructure I gave you a link showing that it is being spent. All of it. The last project is scheduled to be completed in 2025. The article you posted is five years out of date. > How is Exxon, API, Shell, and Total misleading California voters over water infrastructure? My first explanation sounds more likely now. They were misleading about climate change. As I pointed out in my first comment, you blamed the "'drought'" on climate alarmists because you are a climate change denier just like these companies, complaining about electrification in your comment history as if its disadvantages are anywhere near as bad as climate change. You pretend (or simply believe out of lack of research ability) the drought is due to population increases instead of due to climate change even though urban and agricultural water usage has steadily declined since 1995. https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/
    - olivermarks 4y ago
      Your link is to snails pace bureaucratic permitting and environmental projects 'in order to proceed with construction phase of reservoir expansion' five years later. The oil companies have zero to do with this, while 'climate change' has little relevance to increasing water storage.
      - olivermarks 4y ago
        Here's an article from today. https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/california-water-storage-17719807.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/california-water... Sadly you were completely wrong @lern_too_spel, and as you will see there is no 'climate change denier' rhetoric, just a need for more water storage. “We’re in a climate emergency and we need to start acting with some urgency here,” said Adrian Covert, senior vice president of public policy for the Bay Area Council, which advocates for businesses in the Bay Area. “When you’re talking about storage projects and dams, they are going to last 100 years and you want to get it right and caution is appropriate. At the same time, you have to deliver results.”