Jump to content
WCSBoard

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 11:34 AM, Old_SD_Dude said:

Still waiting for you to name anything in this thread under jurisdiction of the state. 

I just did. Show me those aren't under the jurisdiction of the State of California. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 10:35 AM, AztecAlien said:

Is that what I did in that post?

"failed policies and programs that have hurt the state of California and cost taxpayers billions of dollars in waste."

Ok.

 

 

Context, my guy. What is this thread about?

Keep backpedaling. 

  • Idiot 1
Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 10:36 AM, AztecAlien said:

I just did. Show me those aren't under the jurisdiction of the State of California. 

The reservoir that you pointed to as being repaired.

The dams and reservoirs releasing water right now. 

Pretty much everything in this thread.

  • Like 2
  • Idiot 1
Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 11:36 AM, smltwnrckr said:

Context, my guy. What is this thread about?

Keep backpedaling. 

It's context when you can't admit the failed policies of the State of California. 

  • Facepalm 1
Posted

bills-ugh.gif

 

@AztecAlien desperately googling to try and find a thru line connection between Gavin Newsom's policies and the Army Corps of Engineers releasing Edit: wasting water because Trump said so.

  • Haha 2
  • Idiot 1
Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 11:54 AM, smltwnrckr said:

bills-ugh.gif

 

@AztecAlien desperately googling to try and find a thru line connection between Gavin Newsom's policies and the Army Corps of Engineers releasing Edit: wasting water because Trump said so.

OK. 

Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 7:57 AM, Old_SD_Dude said:

 It will do absolutely nothing to help fight fires in Southern California

Also, this point should be reiterated. This water can only go over the grapevine if Gavin Newsom agrees to buy it from Trump. Otherwise, it's just gonna chill in the basin. 

  • Haha 1
  • Idiot 1
Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 11:04 AM, AztecAlien said:

OK. 

I mean, give me a specific California water policy that has caused anything in this thread. 

vinny-my.gif

  • Idiot 1
Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 11:06 AM, smltwnrckr said:

Also, this point should be reiterated. This water can only go over the grapevine if Gavin Newsom agrees to buy it from Trump. Otherwise, it's just gonna chill in the basin. 

@AztecAlien I rarely respond to the idiot button. But the first post in this thread literally states why this is true. Like, you can only disagree with my statement here if you think physics isn't real.

  • Idiot 1
Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 11:30 AM, Billings said:

pretty much true of most states.  Infrastructure in the South and Texas is crumbling

It's true in every single state.  

  • Like 1
Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 11:06 AM, smltwnrckr said:

Also, this point should be reiterated. This water can only go over the grapevine if Gavin Newsom agrees to buy it from Trump. Otherwise, it's just gonna chill in the basin. 

Actually, the water in question from those two dams can’t even be bought. It’s not connected to the state water project as are the rivers further north. That’s what makes the statement from the COE so ludicrous. It will be good for the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

  • Like 2
Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 12:11 PM, smltwnrckr said:

@AztecAlien I rarely respond to the idiot button. But the first post in this thread literally states why this is true. Like, you can only disagree with my statement here if you think physics isn't real.

I didn't mention Trump, you just added that for context. 

I responded to this context, which is wrong. 

"Southern California, where water supply was never an issue in the first place."

And then I pointed out the waste of billions of dollars by the State of California's failed programs like the 200 billion dollar bullet train, while the state needs a trillion dollars to fix its infrastructure. 

You won't admit, not once, that California has failed in addressing its infrastructure problems while spending taxpayers' money on programs that have failed miserably and then go to your ad-hominem game. At least the old guy admitted that state isn't run properly. 

It was the same thing when I argued about the impacts of urban sprawl and the recent LA Fires. You discredited any research as being wrong other than the research you provide. 

Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 12:11 PM, smltwnrckr said:

@AztecAlien I rarely respond to the idiot button. But the first post in this thread literally states why this is true. Like, you can only disagree with my statement here if you think physics isn't real.

I mean, they are just rules of the simulation.  

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 11:16 AM, Old_SD_Dude said:

Actually, the water in question from those two dams can’t even be bought. It’s not connected to the state water project as are the rivers further north. That’s what makes the statement from the COE so ludicrous. It will be good for the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

I'm assuming that some of the districts who get that water also get state water, so that conceivably it's possible for the feds to sell it to the state.

Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 11:40 AM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I mean, they are just rules of the simulation.  

I mean, our water system has defied physics since the 60s for the people who had enough money.

So, there's that...

  • Like 1
Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 11:18 AM, AztecAlien said:

I didn't mention Trump, you just added that for context. 

Uh, that is the context of this entire thread.

On 2/1/2025 at 11:18 AM, AztecAlien said:

I responded to this context, which is wrong. 

"Southern California, where water supply was never an issue in the first place."

Uh, the context of that comment was that the So Cal water supply was not an issue at all in the current fires.

On 2/1/2025 at 11:18 AM, AztecAlien said:

And then I pointed out the waste of billions of dollars by the State of California's failed programs like the 200 billion dollar bullet train, while the state needs a trillion dollars to fix its infrastructure. 

You won't admit, not once, that California has failed in addressing its infrastructure problems while spending taxpayers' money on programs that have failed miserably and then go to your ad-hominem game. At least the old guy admitted that state isn't run properly. 

And then you just made general statements about general policies because you don't know what you're talking about. Other than you think California shouldn't spend money on this or that. 

On 2/1/2025 at 11:18 AM, AztecAlien said:

It was the same thing when I argued about the impacts of urban sprawl and the recent LA Fires. You discredited any research as being wrong other than the research you provide. 

I mean, the people who wrote the research you posted in that case were the ones who discredited your arguments. Not me.

  • Like 1
  • Idiot 1
Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 11:46 AM, smltwnrckr said:

I'm assuming that some of the districts who get that water also get state water, so that conceivably it's possible for the feds to sell it to the state.

Sure. It could replace water otherwise supplied to these districts by the state, but only before it goes over the spillway. Too late now...

Posted
On 2/1/2025 at 12:50 PM, smltwnrckr said:

Uh, that is the context of this entire thread.

Uh, the context of that comment was that the So Cal water supply was not an issue at all in the current fires.

And then you just made general statements about general policies because you don't know what you're talking about. Other than you think California shouldn't spend money on this or that. 

I mean, the people who wrote the research you posted in that case were the ones who discredited your arguments. Not me.

Those researchers absolutely did not discredit my argument. My argument was climate change is real, and humans are accelerating it to a point. The research I provided did mention human acceleration of global warming. I didn't argue that and stated that throughout the thread. My argument was that the cause of the human and economic devastation of the recent fires was a direct impact of urban sprawl. That research points that out clearly.

That research also mentioned what I was saying about California having excessive drought periods that date back hundreds and possibly thousands of years that several posters just ignored, including yourself. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...