Indexes
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- President Obama's first year (67)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- Local business leaders say tourism, Costco, Home Depot may play roles in city's future (60)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (49)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (43)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Police: Train victim was a Lodi teen (31)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (31)
ADVERTISEMENT
Delta residents know what's best for the Delta: No canal
Saturday, October 24, 2009 7:13 AM PDT
I have fond memories of growing up on the Delta. We lived in a trailer park at Tower Park Marina, right on Little Potato Slough. Having the Delta in my backyard as a child makes me especially protective of its future for the next generation.
A new vision is needed for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta — one that includes the people of the Delta. Today, the Delta is home to more than five million Californians, including many who rely on the Delta to support their jobs and the local economy. Those that live within the five Delta counties must be part of the public policy process that determines what happens to the local water supply.
Right now, a package of water proposals is being crafted in the Capitol and decisions are being made that will dramatically impact the Delta region. The most troubling piece of the proposals: Gov. Schwarzenegger's new "peripheral canal" that would take existing water from the Sacramento River and move it around the Delta to Southern California. His plan would hurt our local communities, cost our state billions of dollars and not produce one drop of water. This measure is being backed primarily by Southern California Water Agencies.
In 1982, a proposal to build a peripheral canal was overwhelmingly defeated by California voters. Since then, the cost to construct the canal has increased to more than $20 billion. Building a canal would take 10 to 15 years and, when completed, it would be 50 miles long — longer than the Panama Canal!
In addition to the canal, current proposals include creating a new council of gubernatorial appointees to oversee the Delta — without Delta representatives. This new bureaucracy would decide whether to approve a peripheral canal, and would set fees for water users throughout the state. There would be no legislative oversight, limited input from the public and no vote of the people on whether or not to build the canal.
Last month, I joined with local leaders, farmers, environmental groups and businesses to fight this set of water policy proposals in the State Assembly. We won, but Gov. Schwarzenegger is still pushing his plan to build the canal and take our water.
Nothing in the past or current proposals reflects a genuine effort to take into account the concerns of the Delta farmers, fishermen, environmentalists and other residents of the region. Delta residents want a real solution to the water crisis, one that includes treating the Delta residents as partners in the solution.
There is no doubt the state is facing a water crisis and the debate over how to resolve it started long ago. Many of you have fought hard to ensure the Delta voice is heard, but the fight is not over yet.
Our residents cannot be ignored while decisions are made that could drastically affect the region.
We need to look for programs and policies that address the entire system of water use, including supply, delivery, maintenance, treatment and conservation to reduce overall costs to the ratepayer and conserve our environmental resources. This is why it is so critical that local stakeholders be entrusted to manage the natural resources found in their own backyards. We know the Delta's needs and value its health because it is uniquely tied to our everyday lives.
And we know that building a $20 billion canal that sends our water to Los Angeles won't improve our water supply.
To fight for the protection of the Delta, please attend a public hearing at the Capitol on Monday at 9 a.m. in Room 4202. More information is available at www.asm.ca.gov/huber or by calling (916) 319-2010.
Alyson Huber represents Lodi in the 10th Assembly District.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Leonard wrote on Nov 1, 2009 9:12 PM:
" No O'uneducated one, I graduated from UCD and I didn't work as a janitor. Glad to see that you recongize that your son is less than qualified to attend a UC and could only get in under affirmative action. "
I wonder, what sort of nightmarish, persecuting minority to you imagine me to be? "
Leonard wrote on Nov 1, 2009 9:09 PM:
" L - this answers the question better than I can in 160 words
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080327102404AAPueHx
The response that you cite merely restates what I already have acknowledged, that some people believed that secession was constitutional. While that is certainly true, it no more proves your point than anything else you have posted here, as some people clearly believed that it was not. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 1, 2009 9:00 PM:
TJ, the only University I know of with affirmative action for guys with Jewish Dads and WASP mothers is Brandeis and I have not had the honor. Still, it sounds like you got what you wanted so I still don't see how you count yourself a victim. "
t jefferson wrote on Nov 1, 2009 8:40 PM:
Ivan Dixon wrote on Nov 1, 2009 8:48 AM:
Early 90's. How about the admissions into the UC system in the 80's reserving space for special groups, even though they were not qualified.."
Well, at long last we find out why you have been so obsessed with my son's supposed diploma from UC Davis.
He took your place, I suppose? "
t jefferson wrote on Nov 1, 2009 6:18 AM:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080327102404AAPueHx.
As far as reverse discrimination. How about applying for a position with the government and being told --- you're a white male, we are only taking minority and females at this time. Early 90's. How about the admissions into the UC system in the 80's reserving space for special groups, even though they were not qualified...I could go on and on. I have ended up very successful, by my own hard work, I was just amazed at the level of discrimination in put in place by the government in the name of equality. I think a lot of the problems we are now having are a direct result of these programs in the 80s and 90s. The best were not hired and the government is suffering. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 30, 2009 8:10 PM:
Leonard wrote on Oct 30, 2009 8:09 PM:
" L - it's not there...you can look all you want, but it is not there. Find it, quote it. Read the contemporary documents and you will see that what I said before was correct.
The problem is that you are reading the docs only with an eye to your own POV. Yes, some people believed that the Union was soluble but an equal if not greater number of people thought that it was not.
You are not making your argument stronger by telling only part of the story. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 30, 2009 8:06 PM:
I would really like to get past this issue but reverse discrimination has hit me in the face my whole life..
In my life as a white man, I do not believe that I have ever suffered from "reverse discrimination". I have worked hard and, frankly, I have succeeded beyond anything I would have expected.
I am curious (honestly) to know in which ways you feel you have been discriminated against. "
t jefferson wrote on Oct 30, 2009 8:01 PM:
t jefferson wrote on Oct 30, 2009 7:53 PM:
This country is more divided now that at almost anytime in its past. In the name of multiculturalism and diversity, the government has driven wedges so deep between the ethnic groups they are what started the fracturing. Take the issue of slavery - no one born and alive today has ever been a slave or owned a slave. Slavery is still alive and thriving in Africa and the middle east. If you understand the history of slavery, you know a lot of it was the result of tribal warfare and was the predecessor of the genocides occuring in Africa today. Yet still in America, where the country has bent over backward to provide opportunities based on skin color for things no one alive has done, do we still discuss slavery on an almost daily basis. I would really like to get past this issue but reverse discrimination has hit me in the face my whole life...kind of hard to agree with a system that claims equality and then blatantly stacks the deck incorrectly. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 30, 2009 7:52 PM:
Leonard wrote on Oct 30, 2009 7:47 PM:
As far as cities. What happens in any revolution? What happened to those that remained loyal to the crown during the revolution? They left, just like I would imagine those in Austin would leave if the hypothetical happened.
Really? That is what you really think? That the Founders, men who spent 156 words on describing how new states were to be admitted to the Union, didn't bother to even mention the mechanism by which that Union would be torn asunder?
From my point of view, this argument of
yours is becoming less credible the more you describe it. "
t jefferson wrote on Oct 30, 2009 7:43 PM:
I doubt this country could stomach a war on par with WWII again. What we have going now are occupations and look at the consternation they create.
All of this leads me to believe that if a state were to secede they would be allowed to go. No president today would order the invasion of a seceding state. Any succession would also have a lot of support. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 30, 2009 7:40 PM:
L - If you are going play the spelling/grammar police, I will stop any discussion.
As I said, I honestly don't like that sort of thing. I simply wanted to be clear about the terms of our discussion. "
t jefferson wrote on Oct 30, 2009 7:37 PM:
L - If you are going play the spelling/grammar police, I will stop any discussion. this is the internet - make your point in 160 words or less. Not going to take the time to make sure my fingers hit all the right keys.
As far as cities. What happens in any revolution? What happened to those that remained loyal to the crown during the revolution? They left, just like I would imagine those in Austin would leave if the hypothetical happened. Look at CA right now, it is going left and producers are leaving the state in drove because of it. Populations are fluid....
My bet is that the liberal enclave of Austin will not have the intestinal fortitude to do what it take en masse to secure their liberty. They will probably try to tell the local police to handle -- kind of like the prince in Bravehart. "
Ivan Dixon wrote on Oct 30, 2009 6:25 PM:
Leonard wrote on Oct 30, 2009 2:53 PM:
" L - I will slow down. I ssssaaaaiiiiddddd the constitution is silent on the issue of secession. Up until the civil war the states believed they had the right to secede.
No, up until the Civil War, some people in some states believed that states had the right to secede. Clearly, just as today, many did not.
Even here in Texas, there was a sizable minority of the population who believed that secession was wrong and who refused to fight against there own country. Resistance was particularly strong right here where I live today in Travis County along with Gillespie, Kerr, Kendall, Medina, and Bexar counties.
Many of those who remained loyal to their country were persecuted and even murdered, most notably in the Nueces Massacre of 1862. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 30, 2009 2:47 PM:
My argument is sound and is based on the evolution of nations. If your argument held the Roman Empire would still exist, the fact it doesn't and there have been numerous changes over time would tend to show that my view is a lot more valid than yours.
I believe we are more or less in agreement on what will happen. The point on which I disagree with you is the question of what should happen.
As carefully crafted as the Constitution is, with its finely tuned system of checks and balances, I think it is absurd to suggest that the Founders intended for the fate of entire cities to be decided by bloodshed.
Your argument simply is not credible. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 30, 2009 2:44 PM:
" L - I will slow down. I ssssaaaaiiiiddddd the constitution is silent on the issue of succession. Up until the civil war the states believed they had the right to succeed. After the civil war the progressive believe the states do not have a right to succeed.
TJ, I generally don't care too much about spelling but, just so that we are clear in our discussion here, I believe that we are talking about states seceding not succeeding. I am all for states succeeding and I certainly don't think their is any prohibition, tacit or otherwise against it in the Constitution. "
wtf wrote on Oct 30, 2009 1:48 PM:
http://jberggren.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/another-reason-why-the-government-should-not-run-our-schools/
And it looks like Dad was also on a local talk radio show...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuZXfouLPzw "
t jefferson wrote on Oct 30, 2009 12:44 PM:
As far as free zone. they will be addressed through force. If Austin succeeds from TX, we'll see what the rest of TX does.
My argument is sound and is based on the evolution of nations. If your argument held the Roman Empire would still exist, the fact it doesn't and there have been numerous changes over time would tend to show that my view is a lot more valid than yours. Over time things will evolve, the US is no different. With the way things are going now I believe that we are accelerating into the change not staying static. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 30, 2009 12:03 PM:
" Leonard, tjeff, your conversation regarding the Constitution; particularly the Bill of Rights, appears to be moot given what some schools are teaching our young people. Here's an example of what's being "taught" in a Texas middle school (your neck of the woods, Leonard):
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=27008
That story has the distinct odor of bull excrement. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 30, 2009 11:48 AM:
The way I see it, TJ your argument is just a house of cards. "
wtf wrote on Oct 30, 2009 11:29 AM:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=27008 "
Leonard wrote on Oct 30, 2009 8:22 AM:
The federal government has distinct limited powers and everything else is reserved to the states.
Obviously, the supposed right to violate the Constitution is an extraordinary issue that stands aside from the rights. The fact that such a contradictory idea is not mentioned in the Constitution certainly can't be seen as an endorsement. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 30, 2009 7:59 AM:
" L - I know the constitution for you progressive is a living document subject to change whenever you want, but man you should read it first. Did I say the 10th allowed states to do anything they wanted - no.
Secession allows states to do whatever they want since they will be freed from the bonds of the Constitution. So yes, if you think that the 10th allows secession, you are, in effect, saying that it allows them to do whatever they they want. "
t jefferson wrote on Oct 30, 2009 7:02 AM:
Your grasp of history and politics is underwhelming... "
Leonard wrote on Oct 29, 2009 4:27 PM:
Your interpretation of the Constitution is not correct. You describe the powers to amend the constitution as proving that the constitution superceeds the states - not quite. What about the 10 amendment.
To claim that the 10th Amendment all gives a state the right to violate all of the other amendments and articles of the Constitution is absurd. Such an interpretation renders the Constitution meaningless and leaves the people of any particular state utterly powerless against the whims of their local government. "
t jefferson wrote on Oct 29, 2009 1:11 PM:
Your interpretation of the Constitution is not correct. You describe the powers to amend the constitution as proving that the constitution superceeds the states - not quite. What about the 10 amendment. Only the progressive courts and the barrel of a gun have determined federal overrules state. With both the status could change and there would probably be a fight, but by no means does the constitution address succession or primacy over state affairs. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:56 AM:
Along with the departure from his conservative roots, my biggest problem with George W. Bush was his MIA status during the last two years of his presidency. That being said, he did keep us safe since the atrocities of 9/11 which, of course, is the primary job of any U.S. president. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:35 AM:
" L the last election was a referendum against Bush, not for something.
Bush in the specific but Bush style conservativism in the general. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:35 AM:
" As Mao said, all political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Glad you agree with the right to defend yourself. I do find it strange that you consistly support those that will take that right away.
You have no idea who I vote for. I have, for example, consistently voted against Feinstein ever since I turned 18.
That said, the 2AM is only important to me insofar as it allows me to defend my other rights. To vote for individuals who would preserve my right to bear arms while abrogating all my other rights would clearly be self defeating. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:33 AM:
No the federal government does not have the right to force its will on the states.
To me, that statement seems to be at odds with Article 5 of the Constitution. Clearly, if 3/4s of the states can impose an Amendment to the Constitution on the other 1/4, some federal sovereignty exists over the states. "
t jefferson wrote on Oct 29, 2009 7:24 AM:
t jefferson wrote on Oct 29, 2009 7:22 AM:
No the federal government does not have the right to force its will on the states. The matter was settled at the end of a gun. If TX decided to succeed I think the military would refuse any order to invade.
As far as ethnic cleansing...are you kidding me. What a childish notion to think that because a state doesn't want to go along with socialism they must be ready to build gas chambers. Wow, do you use conservative to scare your children at night. Telling them be careful or Dick Cheney will drink your blood. Typical childlike view of the world. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 28, 2009 8:38 PM:
Even if you believe that a state like Texas has the right to secede, wouldn't the federal government have an obligation to act in order to protect the rights and well being of the millions of Americans that would be trapped within its borders?
It should be obvious to all that anyone who was either non white or non Christian would fair very poorly under a Republic of Texas that was ruled by the current powers that be. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 28, 2009 8:23 PM:
There are hundreds of millions of people in this country who don't want to live in a under a theocracy or a corporate oligarchy. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 28, 2009 8:14 PM:
Its hard to imagine the fate of Austin in such a world. That said, I am all stocked up on ammo and I will persevere, come what may. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 28, 2009 8:07 PM:
Much like people in CA are sick of being told how to live there lives by SF and LA progressives, the rest of the country is sick of the progressive states imposing there welfare mentality upon the rest of the country.
You do realize that the reverse is true as well, as demonstrated by the last election? "
t jefferson wrote on Oct 28, 2009 8:02 PM:
Leonard wrote on Oct 28, 2009 5:45 PM:
We will see what happens as this country continues to fracture.
I suspect you are right about that. One wonders what will happen the first time one of the governors refuses to acknowledge the result of one of these contested Presidential elections. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 28, 2009 5:22 PM:
" L - now you are calling me a traitor?
No. There has been a lot of talk about Texas seceding and, as a non Texan, you obviously will not be involved in the decision one way or another.
I was just wondering about your take on the question I posed. "
t jefferson wrote on Oct 28, 2009 4:31 PM:
Stop twisting what I said, I made no no declaration advocating a course of action. It is a statement of fact, that as a part of the union they joined the state of TX is bound by the laws of that union. If the people of the state of TX decided they no longer want to follow those laws they have the right to go there own way. I know you big government statists like Lincoln and the fact that he violated the original intent of the Constitution by waging an illegal war, but hey that will be tested again. I don't think the progressives this time have the intestinal fortitude to force the same outcome. We will see what happens as this country continues to fracture. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 28, 2009 1:31 PM:
I think TX has the right medicine for the disease, they just may have to opt out of the Union to implement it.
Honest question.
Isn't advocating secession a form of treason, particularly in a time of war? "
Mrs. S. wrote on Oct 28, 2009 1:12 PM:
t jefferson wrote on Oct 28, 2009 11:20 AM:
Syphilis on the other hand can be cured with a little shot of the right medicine. I think TX has the right medicine for the disease, they just may have to opt out of the Union to implement it.
OTH CA is doomed to a slow agonizing death, due to a loose and fast life style that has created too many dependent people. "
dogs4you wrote on Oct 28, 2009 11:10 AM:
Leonard wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:01 AM:
" Texas is a much better run state than CA. Only a progressive would think otherwise.
I think you are jousting at windmills here TJ. I didn't say that California was better run. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:00 AM:
" Texas is a much better run state than CA
That is like saying that herpes is better than syphilis. "
t jefferson wrote on Oct 28, 2009 6:39 AM:
dogs4you wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:13 PM:
Leonard wrote on Oct 27, 2009 7:22 PM:
If any state were to leave the union, Texas could make it without the other 49 since it has everything to sustain itself.
Everything except for competent leadership, that is. "
dogs4you wrote on Oct 27, 2009 7:15 PM:
Gator is correct, do some reading concerning the French and their poduction of power. Light years ahead of us. "
jramagic wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:01 PM:
Lodian wrote on Oct 27, 2009 10:09 AM:
Gator wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:01 AM:
you overbuild to hopefully withstand what nature can dish out.. One can go
from coat to coast and find Earthquake faults . Montana is one of the most
Seismically active states in the union. Also the entire west coast is part of
the Pacific ring of fire. So engineering anything like nuclear plants require
over building to the ninth degree. It used to be we could engineer and build
anything and it would stand the test of time.. It’s time to regain that spirit
I’m damn tired of some other country making products that we should be making.. We have become lazy and have lost our edge it’s time we get it back… "
Leonard wrote on Oct 26, 2009 10:06 PM:
Leonard wrote on Oct 26, 2009 10:05 PM:
" Let’s talk about nuclear, Diablo Canyon first and foremost..... Arguably the best running Nuke in the world.
Certainly the best running one on a major fault. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 26, 2009 10:00 PM:
Satisfied? Do I have your permission to blog here? "
Leonard wrote on Oct 26, 2009 9:58 PM:
" Leonard, if your still awake, answer me this. You state that someday you might move back to Lodi, if thats the case, why did you move in the first place.
My, aren't you the curious one!
There are many reasons why I moved. The biggest one is that my wife, who had been commuting to the Bay Area, got an amazing offer from a company that is about 20 minutes from where we now live. My work involves a lot of travel, and the Austin Airport is much better connected than the Sacramento one and much closer. We were able to buy a much better house here than we would ever have afforded in Lodi with money to spare. My daughter will be school aged in a year or so and the schools are much better here.....
I could go on and on but the point is that, in many ways, our life here and now is much better. "
Gator wrote on Oct 26, 2009 8:47 PM:
Wise the Euro are ahead of us in clean diesel technology. It’s enough to P-1
Off.. "
Gator wrote on Oct 26, 2009 8:40 PM:
out a hitch so it’s good for another 30-35 years. Arguably the best running
Nuke in the world. Part two. Most people don’t know about lake Wishon in
the foothills above Fresno. Water spills down a steep tunnel and spins turbines in a hydro plant. So what you say!! Well in the wee hours when
The power load is low surplus power from Diablo is used to pump water
From the forbay back into lake Wishon and the process begins again. That is
A real 2-4-1... "
Uncle Sticky wrote on Oct 26, 2009 8:18 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Oct 26, 2009 7:46 PM:
PG&E`s shareholders paid for Diablo Canyon, not a dime of public money went into the magnificent structure. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 26, 2009 6:48 PM:
the regulations would be overwhelming.
As well they should be. "
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Oct 26, 2009 6:47 PM:
Just think, all of the billions of gallons of water that SoCal desalinates would decrease the rising water level caused by global warming. It's a true Win-Win!
Any environmentalist & biologist will tell you another canal is a BAD IDEA. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 26, 2009 6:47 PM:
You rag on France for their advanced nuclear program, you seem to have a problem with that by calling them cheese weasels.
It was a joke, playing off of your generally conservative beliefs.
If you had read my next post, you would have seen that I support nuclear power, with some provisos. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 26, 2009 6:45 PM:
" Leonard, for a guy that lives in Texas to be so concerned about Lodi, perhaps you can explane that to me.
Well, Dogs, I was born and raised in Lodi, my Dad and brother still live in Lodi along with my nieces and nephew. My sister lives nearby and I figure that sooner or later, I will eventually move back to the area.
Does all of that entitle me to show concern for what happens to my hometown? "
dogs4you wrote on Oct 26, 2009 6:23 PM:
You rag on France for their advanced nuclear program, you seem to have a problem with that by calling them cheese weasels. There isn`t a company in the US willing to build a nuclear power plant these days without the government putting in their two cents worth or two billion dollars worth of support, the regulations would be overwhelming. "
Leonard wrote on Oct 26, 2009 5:11 PM:
" I am in complete SHOCK. This is the ONLY thing that you have said that has been supportive of us real people.
So, are you suggesting that the tens of millions of Americans who have taken a stand against your brand of politics are somehow unreal? "
Leonard wrote on Oct 26, 2009 5:10 PM:
Leonard wrote on Oct 26, 2009 5:09 PM:
The problem is that the extraordinary danger presented by nuclear demands extraordinary regulation. If I had my way, I would increase the regulation of nuclear generators 100 fold and use government subsidies to offset the cost.
So industries are just to dangerous to fail.
Of course, my expectation is that nuclear will be expanded with decreased regulation and that, someday, we will pay a terrible price for our lack of foresight, both in terms of lives and dollars. "
Mrs. S. wrote on Oct 26, 2009 4:36 PM:
Let L.A. use the ocean and desalinate. If God had meant for So Cal. to have our water, He'd have put our rivers down there. "
gray cloud wrote on Oct 26, 2009 4:28 PM:
Leonard wrote on Oct 26, 2009 4:25 PM:
France relys on nuclear as their choise of power
Chuckle....
If the surrender happy cheese weasels are doing it, surely we should be doing it too. "
dogs4you wrote on Oct 26, 2009 2:53 PM:
Sam, I know very little about vineyards or olive orchards, however if you need anything welded, from 3/4'' to 36'' steel pipe, I`m your man. "
Gator wrote on Oct 26, 2009 9:16 AM:
door which could translate to billions of gallons of man made fresh water.
dams and canals are obsolete but our politicians are still in the horse and buggy mindset so they want to continue with the more expensive and less
efficient ditch to move water that is at a premium here in the north… "
Ivan Dixon wrote on Oct 25, 2009 11:47 AM:
I say we just run a great big pipe from White Slough on down to El Lay. Let them purify it down there and put it in there swimming pools. "
CaptainGort wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:01 AM:
a) kill any canal idea- the Delta and theBay are already in a crisis due to reduced fresh water flows.
b) The California Aquaduct already takes vast qtys of Delta water to SoCal....and has for decades. Don't give them any more.
c) make SoCal take the water AFTER it flows thru the Delta...not take it before it ever even gets here.
d) SoCal needs to invest in desalinization plants to feed its sprawl....not squeeze the North for it...especially when there is no more to give.
e) Danger: SoCal has the VOTING Power
to ram this thru...and GOP is now pandering to the "poor farming folks"...especially Latinos -whom they've previously dissed- for support. (Perhaps you saw that laughable Hannity
TV special last month) ...pure PUKE.
f) The "governing body" proposed for the Delta will be a room full of Governor-appointed lackeys. No way!
g) Vote Arnold out ASAP and stall him till then. He has shown his colors. "
Vance Buckler wrote on Oct 24, 2009 3:17 PM:
Leonard wrote on Oct 24, 2009 2:39 PM:
I just love it when I fly into LAX or San Diego and I see the tens of thousands of back yard swimming pools evaporating in the sun. "
wtf wrote on Oct 24, 2009 2:11 PM:
sam wrote on Oct 24, 2009 8:57 AM:
Leonard wrote on Oct 24, 2009 8:30 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.