Monday, November 22, 2010

Is There Even Enough Water To Sustain Development? Is There Enough To Sustain What We Have Now?

Those of you who have been reading The Tattler from the beginning might recall a guy we talked about during the summer of 2009 named David Coffin. David ran for the California Assembly in the 51st Assembly District during a special election last year, and because he said things that were probably seen as being indecorous by the rather predatory development communities here in Los Angeles County, he was completely buried in his attempt to win a seat up in Sacramento.

But then, as you already know I am sure, Politicians who discuss actual reality in California are just not the kind of people the powers that be want to see up in the state capitol. They just might get in the way of the business of sucking every dime out of those unfortunate to be living in a state under the control of so corrupt a bunch of scoundrels.

Plus, and as I am sure you also know by now, we here at The Tattler pride ourselves in announcing support for candidates who just don't stand a chance of winning. Which keeps us safe from having to take responsibility should any of those candidates turn out to have been speaking with forked tongue to win office. You know, like 4/5s of our current City Council.

So as a run up to the Great Sierra Madre Water Rate Swindle tomorrow night, we thought we might talk a bit about a new article David has recently put out. One where he has the actual temerity to suggest that there just isn't enough water to sustain the kinds of development being called for in Southern California. No matter how many $19 million dollar pipelines get built, or which arm of the government actually pays for them, you're still going to have to put water in them.

Multi-Year Projections Routinely Overstate Actual Supplies - How is it that every small, medium and large development or project that comes before neighborhood councils, city planners and the city council is always cited by both developers and the water department as having "sufficient water" yet we find ourselves in the grips of a permanent drought and under an emergency water conservation order?

I find that to be an interesting take. The manipulation of language is, of course, the way power projects its priorities onto the gullible and naive. And saying that water supplies are adequate to sustain development might be seen as an example of just such spoken abuse.

Which raises an interesting question. What if there really hasn't been as much of a drought as stated by some, and that the real reason water is in such short supply is because there are just too many people living here? And that our part of the world is just flat-out overbuilt already?

I know that is not what you usually hear very much of these days, but it is conceivable that be it dry times or wet, there is no longer enough water to go around. And that by talking about drought as the reasons for the shortage of water, the authorities that be are just not being completely on the level with us.

David Coffin then backs his claims up with some pretty damning numbers:

An analysis of Department of Water and Power's Urban Water Management Plans dating back to 1985 shows that long term water projections have been grossly overstated on a routine basis by as much as 41 percent leading planners and decision makers to believe that sufficient water would be available when projects before them were being evaluated.

This study compared the amount of water projected in each regularly published UWMP with the actual amount of water later received and found that not since the 1985 report have projections come acceptably close.

Every report from 1990 to 2005 has routinely projected water deliveries will above 700,000 acre feet with some projections as high as 799,000 AF. Yet a review of historical data shows that LADWP has received more than 700,000 AF only once in the last 30 years; and rarely have actual deliveries exceeded 680,000 AF.

Tomorrow night if Joe and John get on their high horses and rattle on for a bit about how things are either drying up or that there is plenty enough water around for further development (because they have said both before), just assume that they're talking their usual nonsense. Neither of them, compromised as they are, have the ability to plainly speak about their real agendas on this matter.

The Federal Trade Commission Steps In To Save The "Green" Brand

Not that this will come as much of a surprise to most, but the term "Green" has been a bit misused over the past few years. Particularly when it comes to using this poor abused word to describe whatever it is people are selling. Cars are supposedly green, and the gasoline they burn is green, too. And even nuclear power is green. Basically because it doesn't burn gasoline. But, and just as unbelievable, high density mixed-use development is now also green as well. Just ask Arnold Schwarzenneger. Or the G4.

This has led to the rise of some cynicism amongst the citizenry in this great land of ours, and the horribly overused "Green" meme has suffered a loss of credibility. So the FTC, in attempt to rescue this word before it becomes a complete laughing stock, has now issued some guidelines on how the Green Brand is to be applied in this a world of so many salvational commercial and governmental products.

In an article entitled FTC unveils stricter guidelines for green marketing, a website called Lexology describes matters this way:

The Federal Trade Commission yesterday released its much anticipated revisions to its "Green Guides," tightening the rules governing how advertisers should craft and substantiate environmental benefit or 'green' claims. Of particular note, according to the revised Green Guides, advertisers going forward should:

- Avoid unqualified claims that your product or service is "green," "eco-friendly," or otherwise provides a general environmental benefit.
- Avoid unqualified "green" seals or environmental certifications that convey your product or service provides a general environmental benefit.
- Avoid unqualified "biodegradable" claims for almost all types of solid waste.
- Avoid unqualified "renewable" energy claims if fossil fuels are used to power any aspect of your manufacturing process.
- Avoid unqualified "carbon offset" claims unless your purchased offsets reduce emissions within two years.

If you followed all of those rules, relatively few of the things many consider "Green" today would now be able to be described that way. Which perhaps is the point.

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

54 comments:

  1. Those of you old enough to remember the Academy Award winning movie Chinatown will realize that this allegorical tale of rape, incest, and murder was all about bringing water to Los Angeles County. Water, not to grow crops, but to flush toilets. As you now know Los Angeles County is a sea of rooftops. It's not hard to figure there's a limit to capacity. Sierra Madre has reached that limit. And these novice tin plate politicians that we call the G4 know that quite well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That does seem like such typical G4 reasoning. We're in a drought, we need to conserve water, so let's allow for a lot of development.

    You can only wonder how they keep from falling off that tightrope.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let's expand that by a few words: We're in a drought, we need to conserve water, LET'S SPEND MILLIONS to flush our toilets with charcoal filtered water, so let's allow for a lot of development.

    There's something glaringly wrong with this model.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another great article by Crawford's Tattler!

    David Coffin, like John Crawford, Pat Alcorn and Don Watts, who are true AUTHORITIES.....sadly lost elections to incompetent and/or dangerous AUTHORITARIAN special interest controlled politicians.

    When are the naive, misinformed voters of California and Sierra Madre going to wake up?
    I pray before it's too late.


    COME DOWN TO THE COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY NIGHT AND TELL THE GANG what you think of this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Who'd have ever thought that the threat of water shortages would be the way to sell the water infrastructure necessary for development. George Orwell must be spinning in his grave.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The constant threat of scarcity, the constant promise of supply (at a price). That's the tightrope, and they walk both sides of it. Have you seen the banner across Baldwin?

    Be careful about focussing on the amount of water that flows down the toilet, because they can prove that is insignificant, and then they will tell you you can't water the yard, or have a yard, and how you really should be living in a "green" transit nest.

    Water or not, no growth, it's about the quality of life. The few who profit financially from development, do it by reducing the quality of all of our lives. You can't say this in the politically correct environment, but you need to consider population control and border control.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The National Search Dog Foundation in Ojai CA had to provide their own NEW water source before they were given permits to consturct their new training facility. Their project is not allowed to use any of the country's current water resources.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Political correctness is a corporate management strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Realist!
    I like your description:
    "green transit nest" LOL
    My next favorite is "green ant colony"

    ReplyDelete
  10. A poster at the college where I work:

    "Ready, Set, Go Green!"

    Absolutely infantile. And absolutely polically correct.

    ReplyDelete
  11. has reached an all time low!
    PARENTS!
    offer you kids $500 + per month to NOT go to college!

    ReplyDelete
  12. That's the problem with most of our fine state institutions of advanced learning. Rather than teaching the critical skills that are a true sign of an eductated person, they inculcate the wee scamps into thinking just like the vast and almighty government. Which is the fast track to idiocy if you ask me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. They control the tv media and the schools, but not the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The gummint is working on that 'net problem, 10:10. Head over to Google and type in "net neutrality."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thank you Realist @8:36 for capturing the essence of the worst problem we have.

    "The few who profit financially from development, do it by reducing the quality of all of our lives."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bolinas, California was way ahead of the pack on this. Some years ago, the Bolinas city council put a 30 year moratorium on new water hook ups. 30 years! No new water hook ups could be made in Bolinas. The doom sayers, a la Rob Stockly and his ilk, said it was the end of housing prices in Bolinas, total economic collapse, blah blah blah threat blah. What happened? The first water hook up that became available, in a falling down shack, went for something like $300,000.

    ReplyDelete
  17. As a society we agree that elevators have a fixed number capacity, so do banquet rooms, council chambers......
    We know that some places can only support X number of pounds, X number of exits, for the safety of the general public.
    Overbuilt is a synonym for Southern California.
    The problem is in the fixing of it.
    So you come full circle to the high density urban core proposition as a fix.
    Or do we close the doors?

    ReplyDelete
  18. You need to turn that one upside down, 12:20. You can't tell people not to move here, or not to build. However, we should also not expect the full force of government to be pressuring all the susceptible parties to develop, either. The worst thing that can be done to the environment is to increase density in one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Something that has a lot more to do with pleasing their developer clients than it does saving the world from global warming.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I heard about Bolinas when our then city attorney Colountuouno advocated for hillside developers. He talked about the water hook up moratorium scornfully as never an option here.

    ReplyDelete
  20. But 12:24, what is the solution? We are built out. How can we increase density?

    ReplyDelete
  21. There is no way a town like ours would voluntarily increase density here. That is why the state has passed laws that put a gun to our heads on these things. This is the action of a corrupt government working for certain lobbyists. That they dress it up as a way to save the world should be offensive to anyone with a three digit IQ.

    ReplyDelete
  22. When the 4/5 council starts its patter, We need to protect our water supply, We need to be rated high on the bond market so we can get more money to spend on the preservation that we all want, We need pipes after we need bonds, We need to drink water
    and
    only ignorant rabble rousers will say otherwise.
    I'll hit the MUTE button

    ReplyDelete
  23. The green linguistics bring to mind the nutrition linguistics.
    For a while, everything was "natural", no matter what unholy processes the food went through.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Tattler, to answer your questions in your headline,
    NO
    NO

    ReplyDelete
  25. We all live in the California bubble. For most of the country 'green' is already a bad joke. I think the democrats found that one out a couple of weeks ago.

    ReplyDelete
  26. We want but we don't wantNovember 22, 2010 at 12:44 PM

    We talk about limiting development here on the Tattler but we also talk about jobs leaving California as being bad. We talk about bringing business to downtown Sierra Madre and we talk about keeping our lawns green with water from Hetch Hetchy and the Colorado. We want to downsize government but we want to have our streets swept, our trees trimmed, but we want the code enforcement officer to ticket gardens with gas powered leaf blowers, and we want other people to pay the taxes to feed the seniors a subsidized lunch at Hart House. We want streets repaired but we don't want bonds. We want community security but we don't want the police writing tickets to speeding soccer moms. Much of the don't wants could be fixed with fewer people, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  27. It's crazy making that the environmental movement became so corrupted. It didn't start that way.
    And its still true the we have fouled the earth in the most self destructive ways possible.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The only two things remotely credible from the 1960/70s anymore are the green movement and drugs. I expect both of them to be just more fodder for corporations and government very soon. If they aren't already.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sierra Madreans for Sane Financial PracticesNovember 22, 2010 at 12:48 PM

    Let's start again with the goal of financial security as the central organizing principle.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Tomorrow night the council will vote for the Water Rate Heist. Done deal. Actually was a done deal back in August when Levin told them they won.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thanks to the Tattler for keeping the slow growth community in a healthier frame of mind!
    Just imagine if there wasn't this board to express ourselves on.
    I think I would have tossed in the towel a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  32. My bet is that the G o'4 will play it very empathetic tomorrow night.
    We know how tuff its gonna be folks, heck its tuff for usuns too, ya know, we're paying these here bills too, but golly shucks, gotta drink water.
    Now open wide and take your medicine, and be grateful you have something to swallow it with. And appreciate us for our responsible leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  33. It took them 8 months to pass a water rate increase. 8 months. That is a long time. Can anyone name anything else this city council has accomplished this year?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I disagree 3:37. I think they passed it many moons ago. They just had to do a lot of show tunes to distract and confuse.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Fair enough. So what has this city council done in the last 8 months besides pass a water rate hike and not tell anybody until 2 days before thanksgiving?

    ReplyDelete
  36. The education outreach was intended to make the 'process' seem like a real process, one of Joe's idee fixe.

    ReplyDelete
  37. What if they gave a process and nobody came?

    What is the sound of one process clapping?

    An initiative without a process is like a fish without a bicycle.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The credit for anythings that any hard working volunteers in SIerra Madre have done in the last year will be poached by Joe and the other four fifths. I always wondered how Mr. Buchanan made peace with the fact that Joe claimed credit for the paramedic service.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Best laugh today. Thanks 3:47.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Between Mosca's wanting to "go through the process" and Moran's eruptions of personal processing "Frankly, let's just say the truth and I feel...." the city hall chamber is suffering from overprocessing.

    ReplyDelete
  41. You are right yep.
    Let's see how Joe works the credit for the GP's Town Hall Forum around to himself.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Joe was there at the YAC to sign the shortest book known to man, "The Accomplishments of Mayor Joe Mosca."

    So far all it has is a title.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Buchanan, Mosca and Moran will say the Town Hall Forum was a great success because of the new committee members they appointed.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The process is not good for children and other living things.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Remember it only takes 10% of the voters to push this to a vote of the people. Only 700 unhappy voters. Not water users. Not water meter owners.
    VOTERS.
    Some houses have 5 registered voters under one roof.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 700? Hell, we have the 2,000 names of those who signed protest forms. I doubt they are any more excited about a water rate hike now than they were last May. Why should they be?

    ReplyDelete
  47. My hope is that we have a few good local attornys willing to file against the city if they vote an increase.
    If we do, they will have my legal business for the next 10 years.

    ReplyDelete
  48. To quote a great attorney who used to live here:
    If the city didn't keep screwing up it wouldn't keep getting sued.

    ReplyDelete
  49. So who is the genius that convinced Boy Joe to not mention bond debt when asking for a water rate increase? Maybe the same person that stands to pump out some major billing should residents sue the city?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Very true 5:04. But the council majority will be arrogant enough to think that now that everyone knows about the need to pay the bond or go under, the protest will be much smaller.
    Once again missing the point that it was the hijacking of Prop 218 that motivated most people - as well as the financial mismanagement.

    ReplyDelete
  51. First signatory on the recall petitionNovember 22, 2010 at 6:16 PM

    I'm sure we would have more than enough signatures for a general recall if the City were to actually go ahead with the tax fraud they think they can get away with.

    ReplyDelete
  52. p.s. Levin will have to go with the whole gang.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Of the added four to the General Plan committee, only one was able to attend. But--the date was set up some time in advance of the event, before the four was added (?) and that date may not have been open in their calendar. Also, of the orginal five, only 3 could attend, the two others having business or family reasons for their absence. So, Joe/John/Nancy nor /Josh cannot claim their added four had anything to do with the SUCCESS of the GP Community OutReach meeting. It was very ably advertized by the communitcations sub-committee and the town came in full force. City Stafff supported the GP Committee plan with great energy, too. Sierra Madreans really, really do want to see that their town stays the small, pleasant place to live that attracted most of us to settle here in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  54. National Cable News carried a story Sunday alluding to smaller cities and their Councils all over the Country, starting to "cut back, reduce staff, and downsize operations", pointing out that the recession was starting to take its toll at the local level too.

    Fortunately the City Council and City Administration of Sierra Madre was exempted due to lack of interest. Sandi said we were OK!

    ReplyDelete