Almost everything out of the initiative system (arguably, the design of the system); high state spending for mediocre outcomes; "big" (state) government in general. NIMBY housing policy in every major metro. Unsustainable water use for water intensive crops in a state that is mostly desert.
> California gets preferential use of the Colorado river
So, it has relative (compared to upstream users, of which Mississippi is not one) security for about 11% of its annual water supply, due to having established need and uses earlier.
So you're moving the goal post from "water issues " to "unfair control of water sources"?
I assume you'll have an argument about why their preferential control of the Colorado river is wrong?
It must be difficult for you right now after you've continually digested right wing opinion that "California is bad" not asking if there was substance behind that premise.
I'm not the OP. I actually like the initiative system.
I'm saying that water issues in other states is a result of California's preferential rights. Which explains why "this hasn't happened in CA". If you fully read the article I linked you'd see that water restrictions have indeed happened at various times over the years in California.
And I'll point out that the person you originally responded to wrote "Unsustainable water use for water intensive crops in a state that is mostly desert". You goal-post moved this true statement (plus or minus the "mostly desert") to a comparison to other states which also have water problems, one of which had a city actually run out of water.
Yes, sure. I don't see how that detracts from the point I made, or the original poster in this thread made.
A pound of carbon dioxide is the same problem wherever it is emitted. Likewise a gallon of water from the Colorado is the same problem wherever it is taken out. The Colorado water supply problems are equally the responsibility (and fault) of California as they are the other states and Mexico which pull water from it. Legalese doesn't change this.
California's water use has recently been unsustainable. Much of this water is used to irrigate formerly arid lands which have historically been used for high water needs agriculture. This is true.
Fun fact: To be Prop 65 compliant, you just need the ubiquitous warning label, and there's no penalty for over warning, so just stick on everything and you're done.
Speaking of which...
Prop 65 Warning: This post contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
The cancer warning label thing is one. It's basically slapped on just about everything now so everybody either ignores it or blindly follows it and in both cases the law is not helping the consumer. It has also driven up the cost of producing goods which is passed on to the consumer because companies either avoid the cert and apply the label or go through the time and effort of getting the cert.
From what I've read about Prop 65, it resulted in an actual reduction of toxic substances in products. The silly label was an unintended consequence, but is the only one that anybody has ever heard of.
> California has infrastructure. They simply lack water. This cannot be fixed by upgrading.
Yes, it can. Look at a map of California. Look west. Plenty of opportunity to use infrastructure spending to increase fresh water supply through desalination. (Which, in fact, California is doing.)
Ideology divide between the coasts and bulk of the state, water management, mishandling inner city social issues like crime and homelessness, a sense of smug superiority, restricting residential development while leaving commercial development unchecked, ridiculous cost of living and lack of housing for low paid service workers…
