- He touted that the mandatory conservation did apply to agriculture. He said that:
- All irrigation districts will have to "measure their water" and develop a pricing system that at least in part considers how much water a farmer uses.
- All irrigation districts must develop a plan for conservation that considers all cost effective best management practices.
- Farmers already use best practices based on cost-benefit; they already base pricing on measured consumption.
- "Co-equal" is like having two winners of the Super Bowl.
- If cost-benefit don't come in, the project should not be built. 50% "public" benefits is ridiculous -- he's just trying to shift costs from water users to taxpayers.
- And my salary will go up if the State government decides to send me some of its "other money" -- maybe Lester's salary? -- but that's not bloody likely.
- "As best they can?" Did DWR get a budget for that? personnel? Do ground water users NOW get grants? What bullshit.
Bottom Line: The water bills were bad, and these excuses and rationalizations only show how bad they are. You can put lipstick on it, but it's still a pig. (And no, Sarah, I am NOT talking about you.)