3 ms·

So, essentially they're targeting the least significant portion of water usage because they can do so more easily and they don't really consider this drought to

So, essentially they're targeting the least significant portion of water usage because they can do so more easily and they don't really consider this drought to be a big problem... Tax revenue from Agriculture means more. In the mean time, as the state heads towards a brick wall, they'll engage in silly water restrictions so it seems like they did something. Sounds about right for California. When something happens, use it as a reason to raise costs and taxes and do everything in your power to not solve the real issues. Sales tax is up again too right? California really knows how to show its residents love. Tax revenue from almonds is 30x more important than the general comfort of its residents is what I gather. That's just nuts..lol

prawn 12y ago
Agriculture has more unified representation than the public. It's easier to reach and mobilise them. The public would feel more helpless in comparison.
- astrocyte 12y ago
  or.. the public simply doesn't care. In that case, you get the government you deserve and California's government is absolutely nuts. Goes for the broader U.S as well. If people did care, they'd be more involved and wouldn't allow for such a group of clowns to tax them to the hill and piss it in the wind. The brightest people in the world focused on trying to get people to click on ads as their water supply dwindles and their government institutes retard level policies.
  - prawn 12y ago
    I think for many people it's not that they don't care but that they don't know what to do. When it comes to voting, you generally have a vote for a candidate/party that has to encompass all issues. The granularity might be such that you can't easily impact a specific issue. You might get all fired up about water rights, but then it's trumped by candidate/party positions on health policy or whatever. I can remember two issue-specific referenda in my voting life in Australia - one about a constitutional preamble tweak and one about becoming a republic. Both were binary decisions when they need not have been. It's also hard for people in the general struggle of life to get informed efficiently. The media they take in generally doesn't delve deep on any issue or has a vested interest in not doing so.

prawn 12y ago

Agriculture has more unified representation than the public. It's easier to reach and mobilise them. The public would feel more helpless in comparison.

astrocyte 12y ago
or.. the public simply doesn't care. In that case, you get the government you deserve and California's government is absolutely nuts. Goes for the broader U.S as well. If people did care, they'd be more involved and wouldn't allow for such a group of clowns to tax them to the hill and piss it in the wind. The brightest people in the world focused on trying to get people to click on ads as their water supply dwindles and their government institutes retard level policies.
- prawn 12y ago
  I think for many people it's not that they don't care but that they don't know what to do. When it comes to voting, you generally have a vote for a candidate/party that has to encompass all issues. The granularity might be such that you can't easily impact a specific issue. You might get all fired up about water rights, but then it's trumped by candidate/party positions on health policy or whatever. I can remember two issue-specific referenda in my voting life in Australia - one about a constitutional preamble tweak and one about becoming a republic. Both were binary decisions when they need not have been. It's also hard for people in the general struggle of life to get informed efficiently. The media they take in generally doesn't delve deep on any issue or has a vested interest in not doing so.