Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Xolodno

(6,390 posts)
4. It would be cheaper...
Sat Jun 12, 2021, 04:47 AM
Jun 2021

...if it weren't the non stop lawsuits trying to stop it. And why do they do so?

1. Less people driving on I5 and 99 stopping for gas and food. But lets be honest, who wants to smell cow shit at lunch?

2. It's a Democratic thing.

3. "We could spend that money on water storage!" Uhm...where? It's all been damned up, entire rivers no longer reach the sea, Large lakes a century ago are gone...we should be the study of an ecological disaster in the making. "oh but the Klamath"...yeah, go fuck yourself on the last somewhat wild river in California. If they succeed on that, then its Yosemite and they'll say the views on the lake that flood the valley will make it like flooding the Sistine Chapel so you could see the beauty closer.

4. And lets not forget how your generational farm was told by your father, grandfather, etc. "Never accept less water, always demand more! Because if you do, you will always get less". Nevermind they don't pay anywhere near the market cost for that water. And when you mention water saving techniques, the way they act, you think I just raped their 16 year old daughter. Yes, this has nothing to do about the topic, but it does show the mind set.

Fuck common sense, but give me more water so I can grow more water intense crops.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Biden restores $929 milli...»Reply #4