Once again, the issue continues to proceed with a blind spot in the conversations about California's water. The commercial salmon industry recently was valued at $1.5 billion...that's billion with a B. For the last 2 years, and probably next year as well, the fishery has been closed. Not only does the fishery face closures, extinction is also becoming a very real possibility This doesn't even consider the economic value of the recreational sector. Water released to the Pacific is NOT wasted water. Additionally, since the earliest contracts with the State, native fish (salmon) have senior rights. Very shortsighted article.
More Chicken Little, the sky is falling lunacy from the left. Let’s try to understand the party stance; we have to limit/eliminate dams and reservoirs in order to save the Smelt, but destroy our economy? We have to allow our forests to become overgrown to their natural state in order to save our environment, but burn up our homes in the process? We have to close our oil refineries in order to save our planet, but go bankrupt in the process?
This is what the left does, they use a bizarre matrix to make their case, ignoring the need for humans to prosper despite the “environment.”
This is why companies such as Standard Oil are leaving California and taking jobs from our economy, because of nutty, unhinged policies, perpetrated by white, liberal elites on the rest of us.
In order to meet future demands, the State of California must change course, allowing for forests to be free from becoming ticketing time bombs, building new, advanced refineries, building nuclear power plants, building or renovating desalination water facilities and upgrading or building new, advanced water storage infrastructure.
Bravo for this fine article. Indeed our supervisors should beware of the oil companies. Because if the oil business finally wakes and starts suing for just compensation for the destruction of their multi billion dollars business in CA, well that could be costly. Recently Sable has been ignoring the local environmental defence counsels puny lawsuits, and are continuing to repair and replace older pipelines on their newly acquired platform and refining facility out near El Capitan. They paid $750 million for the facility in the hope of getting production started again after an older pipe blew out leaking some oil. But with our supervisors working against any oil production the oil industry is being targeted, hamstrung, decimated and purposely destroyed by the government. Perhaps soon Sable oil will wake up and realize the county has destroyed their $750 million dollar project, and sue the county for a "$750,000,000 Taking without Just Compensation." That loss could really cut into our county budget. Where would the BOS find another $500,000 for BLM studies like they did last year. And how would the BOS cover the one billion in unfunded pension costs they've incurred over the last few decades? Of course the supes are just catering to the 60% of the voting population (democrats) who believe the whole 'CO2 is poison' fallacy. While breathing out CO2. But our entire county was built on oil. Our local courthouses and most older government infrastructure was all paid for by oil taxes and profits. Now to satisfy the populations errant view that oil is bad for the environment, the government shuts it down, while driving to their high paying government jobs, using oil from Saudi Arabia. And as for water, again Mr Stoker hits it on the head. Our Governor Brown built much of California's infrastructure, back in the late fifties. But today, government has instituted so many regs, studies, added costs and paperwork to infrastructure construction, we can barely build a bicycle charging station for under a million. (See bus station) And of course environmental regulations are a major roadblock for building infrastructure. But when you let in ten million new people without incomes, without education and without knowledge of our country and how it works, suddenly you're out of water. NOW, because of the high cost of statewide water projects, it is worth considering local water sources. Our local Gaviota and Montecito creeks can provide 10,000+ acre feet a year of runoff water, that can be stored and reintroduced to bolster groundwater supplies, water golf courses, pastures, even farms. And that can keep creeks running year round to aid fish and other wildlife. This local creekwater is especially valuable because it's already here, and does not need to be pumped any great distance to be useful. I have researched many of these creeks and
Thank you for writing. I'm interested in a pipe from Oregon rivers to Northern California reservoirs; from them, continuing pipelines to Santa Barbara reservoirs for a start. I'm interested in building dams and cisterns in our mountains collecting water for drought and fires. I'm interested in structures (neighborhoods) collecting water from roofs, etc. to supplement the supply. How can Las Vegas and Saudi Arabia, et al have water and California faces droughts with no planning and devastating effects?
I'm reading this drinking bottled water and wondering when our Democrat government will slap huge taxes on bottled water purchases so they can say they need that money to fix our water supply.
I don't drink alcohol so water's what I have with meals and I get picky about it :-) And I make all our bread and the yeast does not bloom as well in SB tap water.
“Elections do have consequences” is rich coming from someone who campaigned to elect the newest progressive to the Board of Supervisors while running smears on the Republican endorsed candidate. Mike “Grifter” Stoker is now trying make money off the community through his worthless PAC.
Except he also ran a smear campaign on the Republican going for D3 at the same time. He gave his precious email list to one of the local Democrats main political consultants, now Roy’s chief of staff.
The Mangrove Lesson: Why California's Water "Waste" Isn't Waste At All
This article's central premise—that environmental water protections are "wasteful" obstacles to California's prosperity—sounds remarkably similar to arguments once made about another coastal ecosystem: Florida's mangroves. The parallels are striking, and the lessons devastating for this article's thesis.
Florida's Expensive Education
For decades, Florida developers viewed mangroves exactly as this author views Delta Smelt protections: as worthless obstacles to progress that "waste" valuable resources. Mangroves occupied prime waterfront real estate and "wasted" millions of gallons of freshwater daily, flushing it uselessly to the ocean. Why protect useless swamps when that land could house people and those freshwater flows could supply cities?
Florida systematically destroyed its mangroves for waterfront development, just as this article advocates dismantling California's environmental protections for water development.
The result was catastrophic.
Without mangroves buffering the coast, hurricane damage increased exponentially. Coastal flooding became routine during normal storms. Water quality collapsed as natural filtration systems disappeared. The $2 billion Florida fishing industry crashed. Storm surge that mangroves once absorbed for free now caused tens of billions in property damage.
Today, Florida spends enormous sums trying to restore the "worthless" mangroves they once eliminated—because they learned that natural systems provide infrastructure services that are exponentially more expensive to replace artificially.
The Delta-Mangrove Parallel
California's Delta ecosystem provides the same critical infrastructure services that Florida's mangroves once did, and that this article dismisses as "waste":
Flood Control: Delta wetlands absorb storm flows and provide natural flood protection for Sacramento and the Central Valley. Without this "wasted" water maintaining healthy ecosystems, California would need billions more in artificial flood control infrastructure.
Water Quality: The Delta's marshes and fish populations filter pollutants and maintain water quality for 25 million people. Ecosystem collapse would require expensive new treatment facilities—far costlier than current environmental protections.
Saltwater Barrier: Those environmental flows the article calls "waste" actually keep saltwater from intruding into freshwater supplies. Without them, salt contamination would devastate Central Valley agriculture and require massive desalination infrastructure.
The Delta Smelt isn't just a "tiny, nearly transparent fish"—it's an indicator species for the entire ecosystem that provides these services. Protecting the smelt means protecting the system that delivers clean water to 25 million Californians.
The "Waste" That Prevents Catastrophe
Here's the devastating parallel: Mangroves "waste" enormous amounts of freshwater to the ocean every single day, constantly flushing salt out to sea. By this article's logic, Florida should divert all that "wasted" freshwater for human use.
But Floridians learned the hard way that this "waste" was actually essential infrastructure. Every gallon that mangroves "waste" to the ocean prevents hundreds of gallons of storm surge from flooding inland areas. The "waste" prevents catastrophe.
Similarly, every acre-foot of water that maintains Delta ecosystem health prevents far more expensive disasters: saltwater contamination of agriculture, collapse of natural flood control, and water quality degradation affecting millions.
The Climate Reality This Article Ignores
The author dismisses climate change impacts, but Florida's experience shows why that's dangerous. California's water challenges stem from climate change reducing snowpack, not just storage limitations. CA WATER FOR ALL: New Research Shows Billions in Economic Risk from Continued State Inaction on Water Supply ~ MAVEN'S NOTEBOOK | California Water News Central Building 1960s-style reservoirs won't solve 21st-century climate problems any more than building seawalls solved Florida's mangrove destruction.
Florida now embraces ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change because natural systems are more resilient and cost-effective than purely artificial infrastructure. The massive Everglades restoration project—which "wastes" billions of gallons to the ocean annually—is now recognized as essential climate adaptation infrastructure.
The False Economy of Environmental Destruction
This article's economic argument crumbles under the mangrove lesson. Yes, Sites Reservoir costs $4.4 billion for 1.5 million acre-feet of storage. California Governor Fast Tracks New Reservoir Project But destroying Delta ecosystem services to build it would be like destroying mangroves to build waterfront condos—short-term gain, massive long-term cost.
Florida's post-hurricane reconstruction costs dwarf what mangrove protection would have cost. Similarly, the infrastructure needed to replace Delta ecosystem services would make the "$14.5 billion in annual losses" cited in the UC study look modest.
The Modern Portfolio Approach
Today's Florida water management includes comprehensive Everglades restoration, mandatory mangrove protection, and ecosystem-based solutions alongside traditional infrastructure. They learned that working with natural systems is cheaper than fighting them.
The UC study this article cites actually recommends this approach: "new investments in stormwater capture, water recycling, desalination, and storage and conveyance infrastructure" Water Sources and Production | City of Davis, CA—not just storage at the expense of environmental protection.
The Real Question
If mangroves "waste" millions of gallons daily flushing freshwater to the ocean, why doesn't Florida just pipe that water to cities instead? Why do Floridians now spend billions protecting and restoring these "wasteful" ecosystems?
Because they learned that environmental protections aren't obstacles to prosperity—they're essential infrastructure that prevents far more expensive disasters.
Conclusion
This article advocates exactly the approach Florida tried: prioritize development over ecosystem protection, maximize short-term resource extraction, dismiss environmental concerns as obstacles to progress. The result was environmental and economic catastrophe that Florida is still paying to fix decades later.
California's environmental water protections aren't "waste"—they're essential infrastructure preventing ecological and economic collapse. The mangrove lesson is clear: destroying natural systems to build artificial alternatives is the most expensive mistake a state can make.
Why would California repeat Florida's costly error when we can learn from it instead?
If this is not AI generated, I'll eat a bug. David Bergermeister, don't you have anything better to do than post this nonsense? Did you know that for every bloviating son-of- a-bitch Canadian who posts on this site, 20 000 people are sickened? You are an indicator idiot for Canadians in general which is why you elected Carney.
First, resorting to name-calling doesn't strengthen your argument—it undermines it. If you have factual counterpoints to make, let's hear them.
Second, I'm not sure why you assume I'm Canadian, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. Personal attacks based on assumed nationality don't address the water policy issues we're discussing.
Third, regarding AI: I wrote the initial comparison myself based on my personal experience living in Florida and witnessing the environmental and economic consequences of destroying natural ecosystems. I've seen this exact pattern play out before. I then used editing tools to polish the writing—no different from using Grammarly or any other writing assistance.
But here's the real question: Why are you avoiding the substantive comparison?
The Florida mangrove example directly parallels California's water situation:
Natural systems providing essential infrastructure services
Short-sighted policies prioritizing immediate extraction over long-term sustainability
Massive economic costs when ecosystems collapse
Expensive restoration efforts to rebuild what was destroyed
If you disagree with this comparison, explain why. If you think California's situation is fundamentally different from Florida's coastal management failures, make that case with facts.
Changing the subject to personal attacks suggests you don't have a factual response to the environmental and economic parallels I've outlined. What specific points in the mangrove comparison do you dispute, and what evidence supports your position?
You are lying. Outright lie. I asked you if priests dreamed of tawdry strumpets. Never commented about the contents of your dreams. My comments never mentioned or alluded to pedophilia. Sounds like bearing false witness.
Can any mortal maintain morality? No societal form administered by flesh can maintain a morally upright society. Don't you think?"
TheotokosAppreciator
The Carlist Outpost
1d
I do Barton. And that's why anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see the correlatioms between the enlightenment and subsequent ideologies and movements with the death of Christendom.
"Liberalism is a Sin (Spanish: El liberalismo es pecado) is a controversial book written by Roman Catholic priest Félix Sardà y Salvany in 1884, which became a rallying point for conservative political movements such as Integrism and Carlism.; Sardà believed that liberalism is the "burning issue of our century" : it is the "radical and absolute negation of the sovereignty of God". It is all the more dangerous because it became an official legal error, introduced into the government of princes by powerful figures."
Jeff barton
Jeff barton
1d
Does the Carlist monarch dream of tawdry strumpets or little boys? Does he act on impulse in private?"
Your own words condemn you Mr. Barton. You are lying in accuding priests of doing so - you accused me.
Thank you for looking up my exact comment. YOU are not a Carlist monarch and I did not accuse YOU of anything. My point is of course that humans sin without exception so no human can be trusted with the power of a monarch. The corruptibility of the the flesh is on display with the indiscretions of priests and the cover-up by the Catholic church. The solution is to distribute power among co-equal branches of government with checks and balances. To say I accused you of pedophilia is not supported by my comments. You do protest too loudly though.
Starting from Zero Tolerance, is a non-starter. We live in an inhabited planet. Enough with these continual false dichotomy arguments. Seek compromises between human needs and the environment.
Newsom just stated the President is pushing authoritarian government.
There is clear scientific proof that the average temperature the environmentalist are using is in fact 4 degrees colder then glacier studies (peer reviewed) stating going back thousands of years.
What is the demand by Newsom and his political power demanding? Elimination of all oil and gas enterprises that will skyrocket the cost of energy. (someone mention 69 cent per gallon tax starting tomorrow)
Is it authoritarian for Sacramento to "force" elimination of local zoning and density? Is it authoritarian to state high density without parking and street capacity is what Sacramento wants, to heck with what the people want? Is it authoritarian to create a law called Builders Remedy and wave the middle finger to the above and historic land use?
Does anyone know the technology is available to create fuel and energy by air capture of carbon? Does the use of low cost feed stock help lower that cost?
Mr. Stoker quotes "...In a recent Utilities & Energy Committee hearing of the state legislature, Democrat Assemblyman David Alvarez said, "We have a crisis on our hand that may have been self-created by the actions taken by the state, by regulators..."
Uh new technology, a peer reviewed climate study, carbon neutral gas products by Southern Cal Gas, dictatorial mandates of taxpayer increased costs, unrealistic projections of 17 cents per kw/hour that is now 55 cents per kw/hour that is making EV use costing around $4.00 / gallon ....and the list goes on.
So which party has been in control for decades? Which party changes the rules just because they can as a one party State?
This piece makes the point there is a disproportionate power dictatorship in Sacramento.
Once again, the issue continues to proceed with a blind spot in the conversations about California's water. The commercial salmon industry recently was valued at $1.5 billion...that's billion with a B. For the last 2 years, and probably next year as well, the fishery has been closed. Not only does the fishery face closures, extinction is also becoming a very real possibility This doesn't even consider the economic value of the recreational sector. Water released to the Pacific is NOT wasted water. Additionally, since the earliest contracts with the State, native fish (salmon) have senior rights. Very shortsighted article.
More Chicken Little, the sky is falling lunacy from the left. Let’s try to understand the party stance; we have to limit/eliminate dams and reservoirs in order to save the Smelt, but destroy our economy? We have to allow our forests to become overgrown to their natural state in order to save our environment, but burn up our homes in the process? We have to close our oil refineries in order to save our planet, but go bankrupt in the process?
This is what the left does, they use a bizarre matrix to make their case, ignoring the need for humans to prosper despite the “environment.”
This is why companies such as Standard Oil are leaving California and taking jobs from our economy, because of nutty, unhinged policies, perpetrated by white, liberal elites on the rest of us.
In order to meet future demands, the State of California must change course, allowing for forests to be free from becoming ticketing time bombs, building new, advanced refineries, building nuclear power plants, building or renovating desalination water facilities and upgrading or building new, advanced water storage infrastructure.
Bravo for this fine article. Indeed our supervisors should beware of the oil companies. Because if the oil business finally wakes and starts suing for just compensation for the destruction of their multi billion dollars business in CA, well that could be costly. Recently Sable has been ignoring the local environmental defence counsels puny lawsuits, and are continuing to repair and replace older pipelines on their newly acquired platform and refining facility out near El Capitan. They paid $750 million for the facility in the hope of getting production started again after an older pipe blew out leaking some oil. But with our supervisors working against any oil production the oil industry is being targeted, hamstrung, decimated and purposely destroyed by the government. Perhaps soon Sable oil will wake up and realize the county has destroyed their $750 million dollar project, and sue the county for a "$750,000,000 Taking without Just Compensation." That loss could really cut into our county budget. Where would the BOS find another $500,000 for BLM studies like they did last year. And how would the BOS cover the one billion in unfunded pension costs they've incurred over the last few decades? Of course the supes are just catering to the 60% of the voting population (democrats) who believe the whole 'CO2 is poison' fallacy. While breathing out CO2. But our entire county was built on oil. Our local courthouses and most older government infrastructure was all paid for by oil taxes and profits. Now to satisfy the populations errant view that oil is bad for the environment, the government shuts it down, while driving to their high paying government jobs, using oil from Saudi Arabia. And as for water, again Mr Stoker hits it on the head. Our Governor Brown built much of California's infrastructure, back in the late fifties. But today, government has instituted so many regs, studies, added costs and paperwork to infrastructure construction, we can barely build a bicycle charging station for under a million. (See bus station) And of course environmental regulations are a major roadblock for building infrastructure. But when you let in ten million new people without incomes, without education and without knowledge of our country and how it works, suddenly you're out of water. NOW, because of the high cost of statewide water projects, it is worth considering local water sources. Our local Gaviota and Montecito creeks can provide 10,000+ acre feet a year of runoff water, that can be stored and reintroduced to bolster groundwater supplies, water golf courses, pastures, even farms. And that can keep creeks running year round to aid fish and other wildlife. This local creekwater is especially valuable because it's already here, and does not need to be pumped any great distance to be useful. I have researched many of these creeks and
developed systems to capture and recycle these local resource at Coledesignmontecito.com
Interesting background image on your website. A coal-powered train on a bridge somewhere in the Scottish Highlands?
It was the bridge imagery that was important.
Voters don’t know what’s happening until they’re knocked over with a 2 x 4. Especially in California where there’s little interest in
Good government.
Solution? - Governor Steve Hilton
Thank you for writing. I'm interested in a pipe from Oregon rivers to Northern California reservoirs; from them, continuing pipelines to Santa Barbara reservoirs for a start. I'm interested in building dams and cisterns in our mountains collecting water for drought and fires. I'm interested in structures (neighborhoods) collecting water from roofs, etc. to supplement the supply. How can Las Vegas and Saudi Arabia, et al have water and California faces droughts with no planning and devastating effects?
I'm reading this drinking bottled water and wondering when our Democrat government will slap huge taxes on bottled water purchases so they can say they need that money to fix our water supply.
Polly - why not just water out of the tap?
Not to sound like a water snob, butI hate the taste of SB water …
I get that.
I don't drink alcohol so water's what I have with meals and I get picky about it :-) And I make all our bread and the yeast does not bloom as well in SB tap water.
Didn’t you just actively campaign for Roy Lee, the newest anti energy Supervisor in Santa Barbara?
“Elections do have consequences” is rich coming from someone who campaigned to elect the newest progressive to the Board of Supervisors while running smears on the Republican endorsed candidate. Mike “Grifter” Stoker is now trying make money off the community through his worthless PAC.
Calling it like it is. Thank you, Justin.
I believe the recent campaign was……….anyone but Das. Two steps forward, one step backwards.
How quickly rapacious government unions get their hooks into newly elected persons.
Except he also ran a smear campaign on the Republican going for D3 at the same time. He gave his precious email list to one of the local Democrats main political consultants, now Roy’s chief of staff.
The Mangrove Lesson: Why California's Water "Waste" Isn't Waste At All
This article's central premise—that environmental water protections are "wasteful" obstacles to California's prosperity—sounds remarkably similar to arguments once made about another coastal ecosystem: Florida's mangroves. The parallels are striking, and the lessons devastating for this article's thesis.
Florida's Expensive Education
For decades, Florida developers viewed mangroves exactly as this author views Delta Smelt protections: as worthless obstacles to progress that "waste" valuable resources. Mangroves occupied prime waterfront real estate and "wasted" millions of gallons of freshwater daily, flushing it uselessly to the ocean. Why protect useless swamps when that land could house people and those freshwater flows could supply cities?
Florida systematically destroyed its mangroves for waterfront development, just as this article advocates dismantling California's environmental protections for water development.
The result was catastrophic.
Without mangroves buffering the coast, hurricane damage increased exponentially. Coastal flooding became routine during normal storms. Water quality collapsed as natural filtration systems disappeared. The $2 billion Florida fishing industry crashed. Storm surge that mangroves once absorbed for free now caused tens of billions in property damage.
Today, Florida spends enormous sums trying to restore the "worthless" mangroves they once eliminated—because they learned that natural systems provide infrastructure services that are exponentially more expensive to replace artificially.
The Delta-Mangrove Parallel
California's Delta ecosystem provides the same critical infrastructure services that Florida's mangroves once did, and that this article dismisses as "waste":
Flood Control: Delta wetlands absorb storm flows and provide natural flood protection for Sacramento and the Central Valley. Without this "wasted" water maintaining healthy ecosystems, California would need billions more in artificial flood control infrastructure.
Water Quality: The Delta's marshes and fish populations filter pollutants and maintain water quality for 25 million people. Ecosystem collapse would require expensive new treatment facilities—far costlier than current environmental protections.
Saltwater Barrier: Those environmental flows the article calls "waste" actually keep saltwater from intruding into freshwater supplies. Without them, salt contamination would devastate Central Valley agriculture and require massive desalination infrastructure.
The Delta Smelt isn't just a "tiny, nearly transparent fish"—it's an indicator species for the entire ecosystem that provides these services. Protecting the smelt means protecting the system that delivers clean water to 25 million Californians.
The "Waste" That Prevents Catastrophe
Here's the devastating parallel: Mangroves "waste" enormous amounts of freshwater to the ocean every single day, constantly flushing salt out to sea. By this article's logic, Florida should divert all that "wasted" freshwater for human use.
But Floridians learned the hard way that this "waste" was actually essential infrastructure. Every gallon that mangroves "waste" to the ocean prevents hundreds of gallons of storm surge from flooding inland areas. The "waste" prevents catastrophe.
Similarly, every acre-foot of water that maintains Delta ecosystem health prevents far more expensive disasters: saltwater contamination of agriculture, collapse of natural flood control, and water quality degradation affecting millions.
The Climate Reality This Article Ignores
The author dismisses climate change impacts, but Florida's experience shows why that's dangerous. California's water challenges stem from climate change reducing snowpack, not just storage limitations. CA WATER FOR ALL: New Research Shows Billions in Economic Risk from Continued State Inaction on Water Supply ~ MAVEN'S NOTEBOOK | California Water News Central Building 1960s-style reservoirs won't solve 21st-century climate problems any more than building seawalls solved Florida's mangrove destruction.
Florida now embraces ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change because natural systems are more resilient and cost-effective than purely artificial infrastructure. The massive Everglades restoration project—which "wastes" billions of gallons to the ocean annually—is now recognized as essential climate adaptation infrastructure.
The False Economy of Environmental Destruction
This article's economic argument crumbles under the mangrove lesson. Yes, Sites Reservoir costs $4.4 billion for 1.5 million acre-feet of storage. California Governor Fast Tracks New Reservoir Project But destroying Delta ecosystem services to build it would be like destroying mangroves to build waterfront condos—short-term gain, massive long-term cost.
Florida's post-hurricane reconstruction costs dwarf what mangrove protection would have cost. Similarly, the infrastructure needed to replace Delta ecosystem services would make the "$14.5 billion in annual losses" cited in the UC study look modest.
The Modern Portfolio Approach
Today's Florida water management includes comprehensive Everglades restoration, mandatory mangrove protection, and ecosystem-based solutions alongside traditional infrastructure. They learned that working with natural systems is cheaper than fighting them.
The UC study this article cites actually recommends this approach: "new investments in stormwater capture, water recycling, desalination, and storage and conveyance infrastructure" Water Sources and Production | City of Davis, CA—not just storage at the expense of environmental protection.
The Real Question
If mangroves "waste" millions of gallons daily flushing freshwater to the ocean, why doesn't Florida just pipe that water to cities instead? Why do Floridians now spend billions protecting and restoring these "wasteful" ecosystems?
Because they learned that environmental protections aren't obstacles to prosperity—they're essential infrastructure that prevents far more expensive disasters.
Conclusion
This article advocates exactly the approach Florida tried: prioritize development over ecosystem protection, maximize short-term resource extraction, dismiss environmental concerns as obstacles to progress. The result was environmental and economic catastrophe that Florida is still paying to fix decades later.
California's environmental water protections aren't "waste"—they're essential infrastructure preventing ecological and economic collapse. The mangrove lesson is clear: destroying natural systems to build artificial alternatives is the most expensive mistake a state can make.
Why would California repeat Florida's costly error when we can learn from it instead?
If this is not AI generated, I'll eat a bug. David Bergermeister, don't you have anything better to do than post this nonsense? Did you know that for every bloviating son-of- a-bitch Canadian who posts on this site, 20 000 people are sickened? You are an indicator idiot for Canadians in general which is why you elected Carney.
Let's focus on the actual substance here.
First, resorting to name-calling doesn't strengthen your argument—it undermines it. If you have factual counterpoints to make, let's hear them.
Second, I'm not sure why you assume I'm Canadian, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. Personal attacks based on assumed nationality don't address the water policy issues we're discussing.
Third, regarding AI: I wrote the initial comparison myself based on my personal experience living in Florida and witnessing the environmental and economic consequences of destroying natural ecosystems. I've seen this exact pattern play out before. I then used editing tools to polish the writing—no different from using Grammarly or any other writing assistance.
But here's the real question: Why are you avoiding the substantive comparison?
The Florida mangrove example directly parallels California's water situation:
Natural systems providing essential infrastructure services
Short-sighted policies prioritizing immediate extraction over long-term sustainability
Massive economic costs when ecosystems collapse
Expensive restoration efforts to rebuild what was destroyed
If you disagree with this comparison, explain why. If you think California's situation is fundamentally different from Florida's coastal management failures, make that case with facts.
Changing the subject to personal attacks suggests you don't have a factual response to the environmental and economic parallels I've outlined. What specific points in the mangrove comparison do you dispute, and what evidence supports your position?
Jeff was probably toying with AI that told him you were Canadian.
Never use AI. It generally gives lame arguments like the Mangrove example.
Jeff, perhaps you could enlighten us as to your claim of
“Lame arguments” by providing an alternative fact, or two?
You start with name-calling in every post, DB. Nice to read I am not the only one who finds you supercilious and annoying.
You have the choice not to read what I write. Obviously, it's compelling enough that you felt the need to respond. Thanks for the engagement.
Don't be surprised. Jeff called me a "pedo" simply because my own views annoyed him. Why? I am a Catholic, so he wanted to make a cheap shot.
You are lying. Outright lie. I asked you if priests dreamed of tawdry strumpets. Never commented about the contents of your dreams. My comments never mentioned or alluded to pedophilia. Sounds like bearing false witness.
"Jeff barton
Jeff barton
1d
Can any mortal maintain morality? No societal form administered by flesh can maintain a morally upright society. Don't you think?"
TheotokosAppreciator
The Carlist Outpost
1d
I do Barton. And that's why anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see the correlatioms between the enlightenment and subsequent ideologies and movements with the death of Christendom.
"Liberalism is a Sin (Spanish: El liberalismo es pecado) is a controversial book written by Roman Catholic priest Félix Sardà y Salvany in 1884, which became a rallying point for conservative political movements such as Integrism and Carlism.; Sardà believed that liberalism is the "burning issue of our century" : it is the "radical and absolute negation of the sovereignty of God". It is all the more dangerous because it became an official legal error, introduced into the government of princes by powerful figures."
Jeff barton
Jeff barton
1d
Does the Carlist monarch dream of tawdry strumpets or little boys? Does he act on impulse in private?"
Your own words condemn you Mr. Barton. You are lying in accuding priests of doing so - you accused me.
Thank you for looking up my exact comment. YOU are not a Carlist monarch and I did not accuse YOU of anything. My point is of course that humans sin without exception so no human can be trusted with the power of a monarch. The corruptibility of the the flesh is on display with the indiscretions of priests and the cover-up by the Catholic church. The solution is to distribute power among co-equal branches of government with checks and balances. To say I accused you of pedophilia is not supported by my comments. You do protest too loudly though.
Jeff, you got a real life LOL when I read, you'll eat a bug.
You too, DOS.
Starting from Zero Tolerance, is a non-starter. We live in an inhabited planet. Enough with these continual false dichotomy arguments. Seek compromises between human needs and the environment.
You should have read what I wrote. It appears that you did not.
The irony of what you wrote is not lost on me. Florida tried exactly what the OP wrote. IT FAILED. It has cost them lives and money.
Florida's solution was working WITH the environment instead of treatin the environment as the 'bitch' to humans.
Newsom just stated the President is pushing authoritarian government.
There is clear scientific proof that the average temperature the environmentalist are using is in fact 4 degrees colder then glacier studies (peer reviewed) stating going back thousands of years.
What is the demand by Newsom and his political power demanding? Elimination of all oil and gas enterprises that will skyrocket the cost of energy. (someone mention 69 cent per gallon tax starting tomorrow)
Is it authoritarian for Sacramento to "force" elimination of local zoning and density? Is it authoritarian to state high density without parking and street capacity is what Sacramento wants, to heck with what the people want? Is it authoritarian to create a law called Builders Remedy and wave the middle finger to the above and historic land use?
Does anyone know the technology is available to create fuel and energy by air capture of carbon? Does the use of low cost feed stock help lower that cost?
Mr. Stoker quotes "...In a recent Utilities & Energy Committee hearing of the state legislature, Democrat Assemblyman David Alvarez said, "We have a crisis on our hand that may have been self-created by the actions taken by the state, by regulators..."
Uh new technology, a peer reviewed climate study, carbon neutral gas products by Southern Cal Gas, dictatorial mandates of taxpayer increased costs, unrealistic projections of 17 cents per kw/hour that is now 55 cents per kw/hour that is making EV use costing around $4.00 / gallon ....and the list goes on.
So which party has been in control for decades? Which party changes the rules just because they can as a one party State?
This piece makes the point there is a disproportionate power dictatorship in Sacramento.