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.