10 December 2009

Judge invalidates QSA

Fleck reports. Seems that the judge is saying taxpayers should NOT pay for restoring the Salton Sea.

Anyone got a better interpretation?

6 comments:

WaterSource/WaterBank said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
CRG said...

David,

The judge did NOT say that the state shouldn't be paying for mitigating the effects of transfers on the Salton Sea.

He said that the signatories didn't have the authority to "sign a blank check" to cover ANY costs not covered by the other parties (no matter how much that ended up being), without getting express approval from the legislature.

Had they quantified a maximum amount in the contract that was within the spending limit, the contract would most likely have been validated.

http://tr.saccourt.com/courtrooms/trulings/qsacasesview.asp

JWT said...

The nation's largest agricultural-to-urban water transfer was tentatively ruled invalid Thursday by state Superior Court Judge Roland Candee.

http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2009/12/11/local_news/news02.txt

Anonymous said...

DZ,

You asked for an interpretation ! It takes time and effort to review the matter. I provided you with quotes from what was reported that the Judge said in the ruling including how he felt it pertained to the State's constitution. I made a final note regarding how I felt it was better to pursue new water rather than new piles of paper generated by litigation and you immediately deleted my input. In exchange for the research it took to get the interpretation you "asked for", you might want to forgo your continuous knee jerk reaction towards those of us who professionally contribute.

In an earlier post, I challenged your "Water Hog" comment. You use government numbers when it suits you. It appears than any use of water what-so-ever for any purpose is not to your liking. Real solutions other than by raising price are also unacceptable in your eyes. Trust me, there are clearer eyes than yours attempting to solve water shortage dilemmas.

Watersource said...

Sorry, didn't aim to send my comments as Anonymous. Old fingers sometimes make mistakes.

David Zetland said...

@Ray - It was calculated, not knee jerk. I told you that I will delete your "new water" spam, and that's what I did. I enjoy your comments, when they are relevant. Unfortunately, I have to delete the whole thing, even when there is just a little spam. This is per your request that I not "edit" your comments AND as a way of saving me time -- I'm not interested in wasting time on spam.

If you prefer to not comment at all, be my guest.