Hacker News Reader

as if earthquake resistant structures can't be built or water efficiency is not a thing or 85% of the water in the state doesn't go to corporate agricultural welfare.

I was going to rebut more of this but its a joke of an argument and rightly should be downvoted to infinite

View on HN

There are better ways of communicating disagreement with people. I think trying to be a bit kinder would go a long way here.

I don't think the amount of water in the state going to agriculture is relevant. I have read that the amount of water in the LA basin is enough for 100,000 people (don't know if that counts their lawns or not). Sure, there's water in California - hundreds of miles away up north. That doesn't help LA, though, without monster aqueducts.

it is relevant because people keep making an awful argument there's not enough water for people to live in cities (LA, SF) , when the taxpayers of the state are literally subsidizing half-dozen monster dams & aqueducts so a commercial enterprise can take vast majority of the available fresh water and use it to grow crops like rice or almonds in the California desert and sell them abroad.

also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Aqueduct

Reply on news.ycombinator.com