« prev   random   next »
1   anonymous   ignore (null)   2015 Sep 16, 8:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

jerry brown - fuckhead that he is - would rather use the drought politically to push climate change greenie boogieman nonsense down everyone's throats.

2   elliemae   ignore (0)   2015 Sep 16, 8:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

landtof says

jerry brown - fuckhead that he is - would rather use the drought politically to push climate change greenie boogieman nonsense down everyone's throats.

Thank you for your thought provoking response to the subject. I feel enlightened, having been exposed to your point of view on Nevada leasing water to California.

The article mentioned that, by leasing the water to California, the banked water isn't subject to a 3% evaporation rate - so it seems like a good thing for both states.

3   justme   ignore (0)   2015 Sep 16, 11:32am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Las Vegas and Nevada has plenty of water? I thought Lake Mead, the main reservoir of Las Vegas, was at historically low levels.

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/aug/14/lake-mead-water-level-estimates-due-monday/

The newspaper article does not have %-of-fulll numbers, only water surface elevation numbers. Fill numbers would be more interesting.

4   Strategic Renter   ignore (1)   2015 Sep 16, 11:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The water level is only a concern for California. Nevada will always get its allocation even when the water stops flowing through the dam.

5   anonymous   ignore (null)   2015 Sep 16, 8:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

elliemae says

Thank you for your thought provoking response to the subject. I feel enlightened, having been exposed to your point of view on Nevada leasing water to California.

The article mentioned that, by leasing the water to California, the banked water isn't subject to a 3% evaporation rate - so it seems like a good thing for both states.

thank you for your non-response, bitch.

care to tell me how i'm wrong that sacramento continually drives a green/progressive agenda despite the needs and wants of the taxpayers of california?

6   elliemae   ignore (0)   2015 Sep 16, 10:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

landtof says

thank you for your non-response, bitch.

You're welcome - and it's "Ms. Bitch" to you.

landtof says

care to tell me how i'm wrong that sacramento continually drives a green/progressive agenda despite the needs and wants of the taxpayers of california?

Needs? No. Wants? Sure, why not.

The West is in a historic drought and the sooner that people figure it out, the better. My original comment wasn't about your post, because is not only made very little sense but it also had nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

I would add that Sacramento (the government center, not the actual city) appears to be driving a brown/progressive agenda, certainly not a green one.

7   anonymous   ignore (null)   2015 Sep 16, 10:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

yeah people don't need water - brilliant comment.

looks like you're the type that needs things spelled out for you clearly: there wouldn't be a need for any deals if the governor hadn't pumped all that water to save some fucking fish, or if the green cronies wouldn't oppose de-sal so much.

and the storyline of today? climate change. as if california has never gone through droughts before prior to fossil fuel usage - even droughts worse than the current one. never!


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions