NASA scientist warns that California only has one year of water left.

[doublemesh96]

Dude would be the first to perish in a disaster situation

 

[crcballer55]

For those saying we should desalinate the ocean, the cost is roughly $1/day for each person if we do that. So a household of 4, your water bill would be roughly $120 (on the low side) if we were to do that. Compare that to 10-20 cents to use fresh water and you see why it doesn't make much sense versus alternative sources. At least if we build aquaducts from other parts of the country we can import any amount of water for the same price. With desalinization, we have to pay everytime we need to use that water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-dont-we-get-our-drinking-water-from-the-ocean/

 

[decemberlove]

I heard desalinated water is still slightly salty

 

[rck3sactown]

crcballer55 dropping knowledge. Always appreciated

 

[blastercombo]

If this means the end of the clippers I'm all for it

 

[RustyShackleford]

For those saying we should desalinate the ocean, the cost is roughly $1/day for each person if we do that. So a household of 4, your water bill would be roughly $120 (on the low side) if we were to do that. Compare that to 10-20 cents to use fresh water and you see why it doesn't make much sense versus alternative sources. At least if we build aquaducts from other parts of the country we can import any amount of water for the same price. With desalinization, we have to pay everytime we need to use that water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-dont-we-get-our-drinking-water-from-the-ocean/

Who is gonna pay for this?

 

[yanky]

For those saying we should desalinate the ocean, the cost is roughly $1/day for each person if we do that. So a household of 4, your water bill would be roughly $120 (on the low side) if we were to do that. Compare that to 10-20 cents to use fresh water and you see why it doesn't make much sense versus alternative sources. At least if we build aquaducts from other parts of the country we can import any amount of water for the same price. With desalinization, we have to pay everytime we need to use that water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-dont-we-get-our-drinking-water-from-the-ocean/

Who is gonna pay for this?

Taxes duhh where else would they get the money lol

 

[edshoecator]

We can't even build a line to connect the state through fast trains so don't expect too much with the building of acqueducts.

Deal with infrastructure first. When lines are breaking, flooding streets for hours, on a constant basis..,time to replace pipes.

If you live in Los Angeles and own an old house you know what happens when those roots break those clay pipes.

 

[yanky]

Still waiting on the bullet train to be built from sf to la. Haven't heard anything about that in a while.

 

[Top Boy]

NT fam needs to get together so we can ship our Cali fam some water via UPS

 

[RustyShackleford]

i wash my car 2 times a week 
shower with hot water for 20 minutes EVERYDAY
water my lawn everyday 
brush my teeth with the water running (sonic care = 5 minutes )
run hot water for 15 minutes in my kitchen sink to clean out the oils in my drain everyday 
dish washer everyday 

WATER WILL NEVER EVER RUN OUT IN CALIFORNIA. STOP WITH THIS SCARE TACTIC MYTH

if water is really going to run out they can filter out the ocean water but government won't fund until they have to...
if anything i see this as a way to tax water in California to get more money out of this expensive state 

This man outchea using more water than a third world country.

 

[crcballer55]

 

For those saying we should desalinate the ocean, the cost is roughly $1/day for each person if we do that. So a household of 4, your water bill would be roughly $120 (on the low side) if we were to do that. Compare that to 10-20 cents to use fresh water and you see why it doesn't make much sense versus alternative sources. At least if we build aquaducts from other parts of the country we can import any amount of water for the same price. With desalinization, we have to pay everytime we need to use that water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-dont-we-get-our-drinking-water-from-the-ocean/

Who is gonna pay for this?

Same place we get all of our other money. Cigarette smokers, lottery players, & stealing from other funded programs.

 

[RustyShackleford]

 

For those saying we should desalinate the ocean, the cost is roughly $1/day for each person if we do that. So a household of 4, your water bill would be roughly $120 (on the low side) if we were to do that. Compare that to 10-20 cents to use fresh water and you see why it doesn't make much sense versus alternative sources. At least if we build aquaducts from other parts of the country we can import any amount of water for the same price. With desalinization, we have to pay everytime we need to use that water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-dont-we-get-our-drinking-water-from-the-ocean/

Who is gonna pay for this?

Same place we get all of our other money. Cigarette smokers, lottery players, & stealing from other funded programs.

Why did I know you weren't gonna have an answer.

 

[coldcity]

Dudes in Cali are going to have to resort to drinking their own poop juice for a glass of water.

^^^^ On the bright side, dem Cali thots won't need to fly to all the way to Dubai to have dookie dropped on their chest anymore

#5 & #6

GAT DAMN!

 

[crcballer55]

 

 

 

For those saying we should desalinate the ocean, the cost is roughly $1/day for each person if we do that. So a household of 4, your water bill would be roughly $120 (on the low side) if we were to do that. Compare that to 10-20 cents to use fresh water and you see why it doesn't make much sense versus alternative sources. At least if we build aquaducts from other parts of the country we can import any amount of water for the same price. With desalinization, we have to pay everytime we need to use that water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-dont-we-get-our-drinking-water-from-the-ocean/

Who is gonna pay for this?

Same place we get all of our other money. Cigarette smokers, lottery players, & stealing from other funded programs.

Why did I know you weren't gonna have an answer.

Uhh.. that last one is probably the most honest out of anything other than the typical "raising taxes" BS they try all the time.

If you want a good example, look at where the lottery money & gas taxes are actually spent. hint... it's not where they're supposed to.

 

[RustyShackleford]

 

 

 

For those saying we should desalinate the ocean, the cost is roughly $1/day for each person if we do that. So a household of 4, your water bill would be roughly $120 (on the low side) if we were to do that. Compare that to 10-20 cents to use fresh water and you see why it doesn't make much sense versus alternative sources. At least if we build aquaducts from other parts of the country we can import any amount of water for the same price. With desalinization, we have to pay everytime we need to use that water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-dont-we-get-our-drinking-water-from-the-ocean/

Who is gonna pay for this?

Same place we get all of our other money. Cigarette smokers, lottery players,

Why did I know you weren't gonna have an answer.

Uhh.. that last one is probably the most honest out of anything other than the typical "raising taxes" BS they try all the time.

And there it is. "raising taxes" BS. Because austerity was working so well for Cali

When a government wants to start a new expensive program, the reasonable and responsible thing is to raise taxes.

You basically want your problem solved for free.

-PS: Didn't Jerry Brown save the damb state with those tax increases. A state whose economic situation Mitt Romney was comparing to Greece.

 

[edshoecator]

I'm all for taxes in the sense of sales tax, but California been taxing our whole existence since jump.

They raise sales tax here but slip misc taxes on every single bill you have. From utilities to that bs crv

 

[crcballer55]

 

 

 

 

 

For those saying we should desalinate the ocean, the cost is roughly $1/day for each person if we do that. So a household of 4, your water bill would be roughly $120 (on the low side) if we were to do that. Compare that to 10-20 cents to use fresh water and you see why it doesn't make much sense versus alternative sources. At least if we build aquaducts from other parts of the country we can import any amount of water for the same price. With desalinization, we have to pay everytime we need to use that water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-dont-we-get-our-drinking-water-from-the-ocean/

Who is gonna pay for this?

Same place we get all of our other money. Cigarette smokers, lottery players,

Why did I know you weren't gonna have an answer.

Uhh.. that last one is probably the most honest out of anything other than the typical "raising taxes" BS they try all the time.

And there it is. "raising taxes" BS. Because austerity was working so well for Cali

When a government wants to start a new expensive program, the reasonable and responsible thing is to raise taxes.

You basically want your problem solved for free.

-PS: Didn't Jerry Brown save the damb state with those tax increases. A state whose economic situation Mitt Romney was comparing to Greece.

California & austerity are oxymorons. Show me a study where California hasn't been towards the bottom in fiscal responsibility. The answer from the legislature is ALWAYS to raise taxes on something. Almost never will you hear that something needs to be cut. After all, it's not their money.

And the purpose of those "temporary" taxes were to pay for the teacher pensions that were promised under Gray Davis during the dot com boom that are still horribly underfunded. And guess what... they're working to make them permanent like every other temporary tax that's been passed

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article4211722.html

 

[rck3sactown]

I love me some Mitt Romney, but I am never listening to him about anything tbh

 

[RustyShackleford]

[
California & austerity are oxymorons. Show me a study where California hasn't been towards the bottom in fiscal responsibility. The answer from the legislature is ALWAYS to raise taxes on something. Almost never will you hear that something needs to be cut. After all, it's not their money.

And the purpose of those "temporary" taxes were to pay for the teacher pensions that were promised under Gray Davis during the dot com boom that are still horribly underfunded. And guess what... they're working to make them permanent like every other temporary tax that's been passed

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article4211722.html

-Wait, wait, wait......................Weren't the last round of tax increases, up to the voters doe?

They had the choice of more cuts (nice that you ignored Arnold's budget crisis, I see you playa ) or tax increases

And they picked in the increases.

 

[HEATHEN]

Almonds.. Takes 4 liters of water to make 1 almond.. Almond orchards consume about 10% of the state of cali's water consumption each year...

Funny i just read this yesterday when i googled why are almonds so expensive..

Im willing to sacrifice California so long as I continue to get my almonds.

 

[Chopper]

Publicly funded pensions and almonds need to go.

Don't y'all got like a 10% state income tax and a 7.5% sales tax and still can't right the ship? Meanwhile in FL we out here adding mad jobs with no state income tax. Don't talk about our L's. 

Seriously, pensions are a thing of the past and need to be done away with. Cats out here supporting some ex-poice chief to the tune of $250k a year. Nah b. 

 

[crcballer55]

 

[
California & austerity are oxymorons. Show me a study where California hasn't been towards the bottom in fiscal responsibility. The answer from the legislature is ALWAYS to raise taxes on something. Almost never will you hear that something needs to be cut. After all, it's not their money.

And the purpose of those "temporary" taxes were to pay for the teacher pensions that were promised under Gray Davis during the dot com boom that are still horribly underfunded. And guess what... they're working to make them permanent like every other temporary tax that's been passed

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article4211722.html

-Wait, wait, wait......................Weren't the last round of tax increases, up to the voters doe?

They had the choice of more cuts (nice that you ignored Arnold's budget crisis, I see you playa

) or tax increases

And they picked in the increases.

As a temporary program (which is WON'T be).

TBH, I was suprised voters passed Prop 30 vs. Prop 38 that would only tax the 1%. Then again, the same clowns get voted in round robin for every state position, so I'm not suprised. San Francisco runs the state. (literally)

 

[RustyShackleford]

 

[

California

-Wait, wait, wait......................Weren't the last round of tax increases, up to the voters doe?


They had the choice of more cuts (nice that you ignored Arnold's budget crisis, I see you playa ) or tax increases


And they picked in the increases.

As a temporary program (which is WON'T be).

TBH, I was suprised voters passed Prop 30 vs. Prop 38 that would only tax the 1%. Then again, the same clowns get voted in round robin for every state position, so I'm not suprised. San Francisco runs the state. (literally)

You're surprised people voted to raise the taxes on someone else as opposed to themselves

How is that much different than you suggesting a solution, but wanting them to pay with it cutting it from other sources, as opposed to you chipping in on the program with higher taxes on yourself too.

-Always find a away to point the finger at a dem/liberal, yet fail to acknowledge what a mess the other side did when they were running the show. C'mon brah.

 

[crcballer55]

 

 

 

[

California

-Wait, wait, wait......................Weren't the last round of tax increases, up to the voters doe?

They had the choice of more cuts (nice that you ignored Arnold's budget crisis, I see you playa

) or tax increases


And they picked in the increases.

As a temporary program (which is WON'T be).

TBH, I was suprised voters passed Prop 30 vs. Prop 38 that would only tax the 1%. Then again, the same clowns get voted in round robin for every state position, so I'm not suprised. San Francisco runs the state. (literally)

You're surprised people voted to raise the taxes on someone else as opposed to themselves

How is that much different than you suggesting a solution, but wanting them to pay with it cutting it from other sources, as opposed to you chipping in on the program with higher taxes on yourself too.

-Always find a away to point the finger at a dem/liberal, yet fail to acknowledge what a mess the other side did when they were running the show. C'mon brah.

No, I'm suprised they actually voted to raise the taxes on themselves INSTEAD of someone else.

I don't mind paying taxes if I'm getting quality on the services I'm being given. But Californians pay $.70/gallon in taxes and still have congested traffic and potholes everywhere. UC's & CSU tuitions have gone up double digits annually and yet still reject in state residents because out of state students are more lucritive when the purpose of those two systems were to educate the top 30% of the population (for free).

When Prop 30 was passed, several surveys said voters thought only 30% of the state budget when to education, when by mandate at least half of the budget has to go to K-12 & higher education. In reality, 52-55% of the budget goes to education according to the Department of Finance.