Posted on

The Supremes (But Can They Sing?)

With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice, Anthony Kennedy, two questions came to mind. An inquiring mind wants to know:
1. Do the four conservative justices (Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch) and the four  liberal justices (Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer) always vote en bloc?
2. In the recent past did Justice Kennedy more often side with the four conservative justices or the four liberal justices in 5-4 decisions?
I had my opinions on each of these questions, but then I did some research and learned some facts. At this time I would ask each of you to answer the same two questions to see if your opinion is the same as mine.
On the first question the most recent data that I found was from a New York Times article from 2014 when Justice Scalia was still on the Court. Obviously Justice Gorsuch is not included in this analysis because he was not on the Court in 2014. This article reviewed the 280 signed decisions in argued cases over the prior four years. Over those four years even the justices that were least likely to agree with each other, did agree 66% of the time (Ginsberg and Thomas). As one would expect both the conservative justices and the liberal justices were likely to vote together
. . . but this did not occur 100% of the time. Sotomayor and Kagan voted in tandem 94% of the time and Kagan and Ginsberg were in agreement 93% of the time. This is obviously a lot of concordant opinions, however this means, that in 6% – 7% of the cases their opinions were different. Likewise Alito and Roberts were in agreement 93% of the time, and Alito was in agreement with Thomas 91% of the time. Again by definition this means that Alito disagreed with Roberts 7% of the time and disagreed with Thomas on 9% of the cases. Even though there is not enough cases to know for certain who Justice Gorsuch agrees with most of the time, at this point he agrees with Thomas and  Alito most of the time.
Keep in mind that these statistics are skewed by the fact that in 2014, almost half of the decisions by the nine member court were unanimous! !
I found these stats very surprising on at least two different fronts.
First I couldn’t believe that there were that many cases that had unanimous decisions. I do not recall ever reading about a recent unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court ruling, but apparently they were occurring not infrequently, at least in the four years prior to 2014. My suspicion is that these cases are not very interesting to the public, and thus not reported on very much. This could also conceivably explain why Thomas and Ginsberg agreed 66% of the time. Likewise it would contribute to the 91-94% concordance by both liberal and conservative justices. The other interesting tidbit is that the Supreme Court Justices chose that many cases that were seemingly open and shut . . .
9-0! (4 of the nine judges have to agree to hear the case before it is put on the docket.) Were these apparently obvious, 9-0 cases chosen because the Circuit Court had made an egregious error forcing the Supreme Court to correct the lower court’s ruling? I immediately think, “Ninth Circuit?”
So how did you do on the first question?
The second question revolved around how Justice Kennedy voted in the more controversial cases . . . those decided by a 5-4 ruling, with he being the deciding vote. The day after Kennedy announced his retirement the Wall Street Journal reviewed this issue. They reviewed all 5-4 decisions from 2000 through 2018. I am going to focus on only the 5-4 cases in which Kennedy was the swing vote.
From 2000-2014 Kennedy sided with the conservative justices in 5-4 cases between 40-50% of the time, whereas he sided with the four liberal justices from 0-35% of the time. (Here he sounds like a conservative Justice.) However, since 2014, he changed direction, siding with the four liberal justices over 50% of the time, and with the four conservative justices only 25% of the time. (Here he sounds like a liberal justice.) Surprisingly, in 2015-2016, he sided with these same liberal justices 75% of the time, and only in 25% did he go with the four conservative justices. (Again he sounds like a liberal justice.) But wait! In 2017-2018 Kennedy sided with the four conservative justices close to 70% of the time, and did not side with the four liberal justices at all in 5-4 cases.
Will Kennedy’s replacement on the Court be more like a moderate (Kennedy-like) or more like a conservative (Thomas-like)? Time will tell. Nonetheless, I doubt that the new Supreme will be able to sing!
Posted on

Just “Dumb”

Obviously I look at the world through a jaundiced eye, but don’t we all? I like to think of myself as a thinking, deducing, logical person, and I would venture that most, if not all, of you who are reading this consider yourself in the same way. Going down that same path, sometimes I wonder if many on the other side ever stop and think logically, because some of the things that many of them say are just . . . there is no nice way to say this! . . . are just “dumb.”

Let’s first consider the “Red Hen incident.” Kicking Sarah Huckabee Sanders out of her restaurant because she works with Donald Trump was  . . .  again there is no nice way to say this . . . was just “dumb.”  How could Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of this Lexington, Virginia restaurant possibly think that asking the White House press secretary to leave mid-meal was a smart thing to do? The only possible answer is that she didn’t think! Not only did Mrs. Huckabee Sanders leave without further incident, but she also offered to pay for the dinner that she was not allowed to finish. Who was the adult in that restaurant? In the end which side did Stephanie Wilkinson help? Even Bernie Saunders has come out against the position taken by Ms. Wilkinson!
Next let’s consider the “Maxine Waters incident.” As everyone is probably aware Maxine Waters is the uber liberal Democratic congresswoman from the L.A. area. At a Capital Hill rally on June 23, 2018 she said, “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. You push back on them. Tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere!”
Her making a statement like that was just . . . again no nice way to say this . . . was just “dumb.” How could she possibly think that encouraging possible violence against those in the Trump cabinet was a smart thing to do? The only possible answer is that she didn’t think! In the end which side did Maxine Waters help? Even Nancy Pelosi came out against the position vocalized by Maxine Waters!
Next we have Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal recently likening America’s zero-tolerance immigration policy to the “cattle cars of Nazi Germany.” As we have recently been made aware of, many millennials actually know very little about Nazi Germany, but surely Sen. Blumenthal knows a lot about Nazi Germany. This statement was . . . again there is no nice way to say this . . . was just “dumb.” With these five words he offended not only all Jewish people, but also anyone who knows anything about what really happened in the 1930s and early 1940s. How could he possibly think that this was a wise thing to say? The only possible answer is that he didn’t think! In the end which side did Richard Blumenthal help?
There are obviously many more examples of those on the left saying “dumb” things. They are occurring at least once each week. But’s let’s be clear on my position here – I am encouraging these non-thinkers to continue to take advantage to their constitutional right of free speech! They can and should continue to say all the “dumb” things that they want!
Posted on

Diversity Over Merit

A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal detailed how the progressive mayor of New York City (NYC), Bill de Blasio, wants to water down admission standards at eight public high schools where kids are achieving. At present admission to these high performing high schools is determined by the Specialized High School Admissions Test (SHSAT), but according to Mr. de Blasio something is wrong with this because 21 out of about 600 middle schools send almost 50% of the students that are enrolled in these high achieving high schools. To me, a rational person would conclude that the education process at the vast majority of the NYC public middle schools needs to be spiffed up. However, the progressive mayor wants to lower the bar for admission by scrapping the SHSAT, and introducing quotas so that 20% of the new students come from high poverty areas. Never mind that these students will not have the necessary skills to compete at these high performing high schools . . . it will look very good on paper as the percent of “poverty-area” students (predominately black and Latino) admitted to these schools will increase. Again to me, logic would dictate that more of these “poverty-area” children should be receiving a better middle school education perhaps by going to parochial schools (via vouchers) or charter schools. In the New York City Catholic schools the bar is set high. In the  Catholic high schools 97.9% graduate and 92% go to college. As far as charter schools go, in NYC there is presently a waiting list of 47,800 students! Perhaps instead of lowering the education-bar for all of these NYC children, he should try to improve the education of more of them.
I can hear many of you saying that you feel bad for these unfortunate school children, but actually Bill de Blasio’s progressivism in New York City will have little effect on any of us. Would you have a different attitude if this progressive way of thinking did actually have a real life effect on us. What if the “lowering of standards” had an effect on something many of us do not infrequently?
Look no further than airplane travel and the air traffic controllers. Obviously the air traffic controllers are critical to the safety of any of us who fly. I would bet that most, if not all, of us, would want the smartest and the most qualified individuals occupying those positions in the control towers. Well fasten your seat belts and prepare for a hard landing. In May 2013 Obama’s FAA changed the process for hiring air traffic controllers and applied this new process retroactively. They decided that beginning in 2014 the Air Traffic Selection and Training exam (AT-SAT) would no longer be used to select candidates for training. The AT-SAT is an 8 hour test that assesses numeric ability, tolerance for high intensity work, and the capacity for solving problems. The AT-SAT was scrapped  and a Biographical Questionnaire (BQ) was added to the screening process. This questionnaire asks questions like “How many high school sports did you play?” and “ What has been the major cause of your failures?” If a candidate did not score high on this “woe is me” test, he/she was no longer eligible to be an air traffic controller! Whereas the AT-SAT assessed merit and ability, for this high risk (for air travelers, very high risk!) occupation, the BQ instead uses more subjective “standards” to foster diversity in the air control tower! Yikes!
So while in NYC the brightest students who are striving to gain admission to these high performing high schools will suffer for the sake of diversity over merit, all of us who travel by air are now at risk for the sake of diversity over merit. Go figure!!
7/2/18
Posted on

Immigration Crisis, Part III

They “talk the talk”, but when push comes to shove, would they “walk the walk?” I realize that I have probably used up my quota of clichés in that one sentence, but the question is whether or not those that bellyache the most about the border immigration policies, will actually do anything if they are given the chance. Specifically I am referring to most of the Democrats and an increasing number of the Republican members in Congress who are “talking the talk.” Joining in, many of the churches in the U.S. are “talking the talk” from their pulpits, while their congregations silently “talk the talk,” nodding affirmatively from the pews. The T.V. talking heads literally “talk the talk” as do those who write for newspapers or on the internet. All of these are inflaming the situation, as they seemingly have no problem criticizing just about any immigration policy, but do they step up . . . would they step up in a pinch? Would they “walk the walk?”
Many years ago, Food for the Poor, an organization tends to the poor in Central America and the Caribbean came out and said that these poor Central Americans would fare better being helped with food and shelter in their own country as opposed to trying to emigrate to the U.S. The book, Enrique’s Journey by Sonia Nazario, tells the true story about  a Honduran teenager’s harrowing journey through Mexico, and across the Rio Grande into the U.S. Suffice it to say that things did not turn out as he expected. How many of the “talk-the-talkers” are familiar with the work of Food for the Poor (or other charitable organizations that deal with the poorest of the poor)? How many of the “talk-the-talkers” have read Enrique’s Journey (or other stories that describe the plight of a Central American immigrant or refugee)?
As I have already stated, I do have some ideas on how to help with this problem. What follows will not satisfy everyone . . . in fact it will probably not satisfy even a few. 
But it is an idea!
First off: Those that do not “walk the walk” should not continue to “talk the talk!” If you cannot put your money where your mouth is, then, how can I say this politely, “shut up.” This applies especially to politicians, including President Trump and all members of Congress, but it also applies to church pulpits, as well as the talking heads on T.V., and newspapers. (Individuals will always have the First Amendment right of free speech, but once that individual is on a soapbox, he/she should first “walk the walk” before “talking the talk.”) Congressmen/women could obviously debate the issues on the House or the Senate floor. That is their job. However, in order to “talk the talk” for T.V. or the press, they would have to “walk the walk” first.
There will be two basic ways to “walk the walk.” Let’s call them “Direct” and “Indirect.”
First let’s define the “Direct” way to “walk the walk”:
Sponsor a migrant family. By sponsoring a migrant family one would be responsible for them for five or perhaps even ten years. Responsible in terms of providing food, clothing, and shelter for this family. If the food, clothing, and shelter are provided in one’s own home, then the migrant family could be employed by their sponsor for at least the minimum wage. Potential migrant families would sign up to be sponsored in this “Direct” program. There would be a form to fill out by both the sponsor and the recipient individual or family so that preferences like religion, nearby family, etc. could be matched. Only after a matching sponsor is identified can the migrant family enter the U.S. It would be encouraged that a potential migrant family’s application be filled out at the U.S. embassy in their own Central American country. Migrant families who made the journey across Mexico to the U.S. border without being accepted by a chosen sponsor would not be considered for legal entry into the U.S.
There would be no politics involved in this program All politicians who desired to “talk the talk” would have to “walk the walk” in this “Direct” program. All churches would likewise have to participate in this “Direct” program, if they wanted to express opinions from the pulpit on this immigration subject. To editorialize on immigration, all local newspapers, and local T.V. channels would have to “walk the walk” by volunteering for this “Direct” program. Individuals likewise could participate in this “Direct” program if they so desired, although I would think that the “Indirect” program would be better for most individuals.
The “Indirect” program would involve trying to make the lives of the poor better in their own countries. For instance, a family in Honduras would be immensely thankful for a 400 sq. foot cement house. Building such a house in Honduras costs around $7000. Multiple families in the U.S. could “walk the walk” by combining their contributions to build such a house, perhaps every year or two. Since education is the key to any future hope of escaping poverty, churches or organizations, such as The Rotary or The Knights of Columbus could provide books and build schools in Central America. The cost of a school in Honduras is approximately $40,000. Likewise bloggers would have to participate in this “Indirect” program. Although the exact details of this “Indirect “ program would need to be further worked out, it is an idea!
Of course everyone knows that this type of idea will not fly. There would be a lot of objections, especially from the politicians.
My question to each of you is: “Are you merely “talking the talk” or are you actually ready to “walk the walk?”
Posted on

Immigration Crisis, Part II

The headline read, “Italy Turns Away Hundreds of Immigrants.” True or not true?
True, as Matteo Salvini, Italy’s new Minister of the Interior, denied entry to the M.S. Aquarius, a rescue ship, that had plucked 629 would be immigrants from the seas off Libya.
Macron of France castigated Italy, but Mr. Salvini did not back down, but rather then banned all immigrant rescue ships from all Italian ports. 60% of Italians backed the new Minister of the Interior. When asked which are the two most important problems in the Euro Zone, 38% of Europeans said immigration, and 29% said terrorism (FYI, climate change was only 11%), and so it appears that the Europeans are as concerned as the Italians about unfettered immigration. Perhaps the Italians and Mr. Salvini are not just mean and cruel, but are looking at future migration pressures?
At present Africa has approximately 1.26 billion people, and this number is expected to double by 2050! Many of these people will be poor, and with Smart-phones and the internet, these poor Africans will see that life, in general, is much better in Europe. Why would many of them not try to get there?
Is this situation much different from what is happening with the exodus of many from Central America to the U.S.?
Most of the following statistics on Central America come from the internet, and although the numbers are less, the situation appears similar to Africa.
The seven countries of Central America have a total combined population of 46.7 million. Most, if not all of the Central American immigrants that are coming to the U.S. are coming from Guatemala (15.4 M inhabitants), Honduras (9.0M), El Salvador (8.1M),and Nicaragua (6.0M). Poverty in Central America is pervasive with half of the population living below the poverty line. In rural areas the poverty is even worse with 2/3 living below the poverty level. The most extreme poverty is in Honduras where 75% of the rural population lives in poverty, including 63% in extreme poverty, struggling to meet basic food needs. In addition the number of rural inhabitants who live in poverty is close to 50% in Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. Despite the poverty Smartphones and the internet are alive and well in Central America. Similar to those rescued from the sea in Libya, why would many of the poor in Central America not try to get here?
At least half the world’s population lives on the edge of survival because of the effects of poverty, and as Jesus said, “You will always have the poor among you, . . .” (John 12:8).
Is it possible that we, as a nation or as individuals, can eliminate poverty in Africa or in Central America? Obviously ‘no’; we cannot even come close to eliminating poverty in our own country. Does this mean that we should remain indifferent to their plight? My answer is ‘No,’ but emoting and politicking for the press does little unless some ideas follow!
How will the U.S. deal with future migration of the poor? Does anyone have a plan? Other than “let everybody in,” do the Democrats have a realistic idea?
Other than “keep everybody out,” do the Republicans have a realistic idea?
Is anybody looking at future migration? Even though my hearing is not great, I have not heard any ideas about how to deal with this issue now or in the future.
Although it should not come as a surprise, I have a few ideas!
Stay tuned!
Posted on

Immigration Crisis I

Right from the gitgo let me state that I do not like to see parents and children separated for just about any reason. (Not counting when abuse or neglect is involved, when this separation is often imperative and for the good of the children.) I do not like seeing the separation of parents and children that is occurring at the border. No one, including those on the political right, likes to see children crying when they are being separated from their mommy. However, I stopped reading the newspaper accounts and stopped watching the T.V. reports on “the immigration crisis at the border,” because I do not know which reports are actually true. I am not alone.Before this “crisis”, according to Gallop a clean majority of 62 percent believe the “traditional news media” is biased. A full 44 percent believe the media is inaccurate, and another 39 percent believe the media spread misinformation.

Recently the media had a field day citing a child with Down syndrome who was separated from her parents on the border supposedly because of Donald Trump’s zero tolerance policy. But there was a big problem with that claim, considering that the child was not separated from her mother while crossing the border, she was instead separated and sent to an aunt after her mother found herself as a witness in a smuggling investigation.                                                                                                          In recent days, a picture of a small child appearing to be trapped in a cage while crying has been spread around the internet. It went so far that even some left-wing news outlets have used the photo to show how evil President Donald Trump is in their eyes.But there’s only one problem with the picture. It doesn’t show what the left is claiming it does.After the picture went viral, it was uncovered that the picture was taken at a pro-illegal immigration protest, and the child was being used in the protest.

And to top it off, apparently the crying little girl  on the cover of Time Magazine was never separated from her mother . . . this according to the father of the little girl!
As anticipated just about all of the Democrat politicians were up in arms about this “separation crisis,” even though this had been the policy under Barack Obama. Why?Because Donald Trump was the bad guy on the other side!
However, vicious innuendo should not have a part of this debate. Democratic Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal likened America’s zero-tolerance immigration policy to the “cattle cars of Nazi Germany,”
“Really, Senator Blumenthal? Either you have a short and deluded memory or you are just lying to score political points!”
Instead of pointing out how atrocious Blumenthal’s comment was,  pundits and politicians on the left have echoed that sentiment.
However, David Tuck, a Holocaust and an Auschwitz survivor, felt compelled to speak out against those who have so vehemently compared America’s immigration detainment facilities to history’s worst atrocities. Tuck said that seeing many Americans, including members of the political class – who should know better – nonchalantly embrace the term Nazi to describe their opponents is deeply disturbing to him.
 “I don’t believe it when I heard it,” Tuck said when he heard Blumenthal’s statement. 
”They know nothing of the Holocaust. They are politicians, looking to get paid,” he said, repeating that those who make the comparison “know nothing.’ When asked to compare the American border detainment facilities to actual concentration camps, Tuck responded, ‘“ is a country club. I was given a piece of bread in the morning. A piece of bread in the evening; I had to survive with my life. I have a number on my arm to prove it — from Auschwitz.”                                                                                                                          
 
 So let’s ignore Blumenthal the Blowhard, and get back to the basics of this “immigration crisis,” and the present family separations. Is there anybody who believes that this current emotional frenzy is not purely political?
As a criminal defense attorney pointed out in a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal, “ [I] can say with confidence that hundreds if not thousands of minor children are separated in this country every day by the criminal justice system. What is happening at our southern border is routine.”
Under Obama, when illegal border crossers were put into the criminal justice system, and families were separated. The Obama administration prosecuted half a million illegal immigrants and similarly separated families in the process. This policy of prosecuting immigrants for crossing the border illegally has been in place for multiple administrations, including the Bush administration.
Neither Democrats nor the media apparently cared about family separation back then. So why all the uproar now? What has changed, other than the president?  Donald Trump insisted that he was complying with and enforcing the law, which is his constitutional duty and responsibility. Despite the hubbub from the left, he was doing just that. Was Mr. Trump also playing a bit of politics here before he changed his position because of public outcry? Was this all just a part of “The Art of the Deal?” Yes, of course. In my opinion he was sending a message to the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Central Americans that might contemplate a similar excursion to the U.S. border in the future. If you think that I am exaggerating with these numbers, make sure that you read Part II of this series.

Stay tuned.

 

Posted on

Responsible Congressmen ?

Earlier this month my local liberal paper had an editorial that I agreed with. Now one might not think that that is a big deal, but keep in mind that I rarely agree with what they have to say. The topic of the editorial was the federal debt and in their words “disaster looms unless responsible Americans step up.” (The emphasis is mine.)
What made them take this conservative stand? It was because of what Howard Schultz said. For those of you who don’t know Mr. Schultz, he is the very liberal retiring Starbuck’s executive who is apparently considering running for president in 2020. He said, “The greatest threat domestically to the country is this $21 trillion debt hanging over . . . America and future generations.”
In case any of you are not familiar with our increasing federal debt problem, let me relate some facts from this editorial:
The Congressional Budget Office predicts that an annual budget deficit of approximately $1trillion will be the new norm by 2020, and this will lead to a National debt of $33 trillion in a decade. The dollars just needed to service the debt will increase from $263 billion in 2017 to $1.05 trillion in 2028, and this will dwarf the annual military spending or the annual Medicare budget.
In other words we are talking bucoo bucks here, and the liberal editorial staff warns that “unless responsible Americans step up, disaster looms!”
Is there a way to change this runaway freight train that is headed for this upcoming big time disaster? Realistically there are only a few possible ways to alter the present projected course of the debt. First, raise taxes. Second, cut spending especially in reference to social programs. Or third, a combination of the two. (There are actually two other possible ways to derail this locomotive – one is to increase the amount of tax collected by reving up the economy – the “Trump solution.” And the other is to close your eyes and hope – this appears to be the Democrat’s way of dealing with this mess.)
I agree with the statement, “unless responsible Americans step up, disaster looms!”
Responsible Americans! I hope that no one expects to find this rare commodity in Congress, as a “responsible congressman” is as close to an oxymoron that one can get.  For the most part those in Congress are most concerned with getting re-elected, and this is done by playing to their base. Can anyone imagine a conservative congressman running for re-election by advocating raising taxes? Likewise can anyone envision a liberal congressman running for re-election on a platform of cutting spending, vis-a-vis stopping the freebies? The answer to both is, “No!”
Is there a solution? . . .  Yes, I have one!
My solution involves a pretty basic idea:
If we want Congress to act responsibly, stop making them run for re-election all the time, and this means “term limits.” One six year term for a U.S. Senator. Two two-year terms for a someone in the House of Representatives. If they were not always worried about placating their base, maybe there is a chance that they would act like responsible Americans!
Posted on

Water, Part III

Next I am going to focus on how California is doing in regards to the capturing and the holding on to the water that nature provides. A lot of the following information was gleaned from a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, and so it should be very up to date.
In 2014 California voters approved a $7.5 billion bond to expand water storage and improve flood control. That’s good news, right? Well it should be except that it is the California Water Commission controls the pursestrings. In the four years since the bond measure passed, this commission has tried to scuttle 11 water-storage projects like the Sites Reservoir in NorCal and the Temperance Flats Reservoir in the Fresno area. Apparently the Commission scored both of these projects low on “public benefit,” and “public benefit” is required by law for approval.  The hooker here is that the Commission has apparently formulated its own narrow definition that includes the ecosystem, water quality, emergency response, and recreation.
A glaring omission from this list is what “public benefit” should actually mean: Preserving the California lifestyle by providing adequate storage facilities for water in years of drought and at the same time insuring that the farmers in the Central Valley have enough water to sustain their livelihood.
This past weekend I drove on I-5 through the Central Valley and saw a lot of fallow farmland along with the following signs:
“No water; no Central Valley jobs!”
“Is Growing Food Wasting Water?”
“Food Grows Where Water Flows”
And lastly, “California’s Future Depends on Water;
                     Build Dams Now”
Already hundreds of billions of gallons of water have been flushed out into the ocean to protect some little known species of shrimp, while the people who live in the Central Valley are suffering! Can anyone explain to me how this makes any sense?
So what’s the final verdict?
Is California following in the footsteps of Israel or Capetown, So. Africa?
Does California have a “Day Zero” in its future?
Posted on

Water, Part II

Look at a map and compare the size of Israel to the size of California. California is about 20X the size of Israel, and California has about 5X the population of Israel.
Israel presently has five large desalination plants and an additional one under construction. This is in addition to 30 brackish desalination plants that are largely utilized for farming. How many does California have? If you had guessed three and were on The Wheel of Fortune you would be out, as a guess that is too high leads to “Good-night Irene”!
The Pacific Institute, an Oakland based environmental think tank,  has conducted research on desalination for more than a decade. In 2012 the Institute launched a series of research reports that identified the key outstanding issues for desalination in California. So what happened after all these years of research? As of May, 2016, there were nine active proposals for desalination plants along the California coast. Wow! This sounds like progress . . .until it comes out that this number is down from 21 proposed projects in 2006 and 19 in 2012. Since 2006, however, only two new projects have been built, and one of these is quite small!
The other ocean desalination plants are in Santa Barbara, Catalina Island, Marina and San Nicholas Island. Together they can produce about 4,000 acre-feet a year. This indeed is a very small amount when compared to the new Carlsbad Desalination Plant that produces 56,000 acre-feet per year.

As of January, 2018, California water officials have approved $34.4 million in grants to eight desalination projects across the state. The money comes from Proposition 1, a water bond passed by state voters in November 2014 during the depths of the drought, and it highlights a new trend in purifying salty water for human consumption: only one of the projects is dependent on the ocean. Instead, six of the winning proposals are for brackish desalination and one is for research at the University of Southern California. In brackish desalination, salty water from a river, bay or underground aquifer is filtered for drinking, rather than taking ocean water, which is often up to three times saltier and more expensive to purify. As of 2013, there were roughly 24 brackish plants in California. Together they produce about 96,000 acre-feet of water a year. Another three plants are in design or under construction, and these three will add only 9,000 acre-feet annually. An additional 17 have been proposed, adding only 81,000 acre-feet of capacity.

So let’s get this straight. It’s been almost four years since Proposition 1 was passed, and only now have “California water officials” decided to invest in brackish desalination. As noted above the 24 brackish desalination plants (2013) produced the water equivalent of two Carlsbad-like plants, and the one Carlsbad plant produces only seven percent of the drinking water in San Diego.

So far this approach sounds less like Israel’s vision and more like Capetown’s procrastination. However, don’t make your final decision until you have the the final part of this three part series.

Posted on

Water – Part I

In the next three essays, I am going to discuss a water problem that three different places in the world have, and then I am going to describe the three very different ways that each of these places has approached the problem. 
One place had vision, and as a consequence developed a smart aggressive approach. The second place was cautious and did not develop the necessary vision soon enough, and consequently catastrophe is approaching. The third place has about as much vision as a blind mouse, and if foresight is going to be required to remedy its problem, there is no hope.
Like I said, problem that each of these three places share is water. All three of these places are arid, and in all three places rain falls almost solely in the winter, and largely in the north. In all three of these places irrigation and water engineering are vital to economic survival and growth.
The first place is Israel.
In the mid 1990s,Israel realized that the main groundwater aquifers, namely the Sea
of Galilee and the Jordan River were on the verge of collapse.  This was a turning point as Israel then realized that they could not rely solely on natural water. A significant drought in 1998-2002 pushed Israel to make a decision, as this drought prompted the Israeli government to promote large scale seawater desalinization, and now desalinization outstrips conventional water resources. With determination added to their vision, desalination supplied about 40% of Israel’s drinking water in 2015, and the goal is for Israel to supply 70% of its drinking water from desalination by 2050.
Israel’s approach is a good example of how foresight morphed into a vision, and when mixed with determination has led to a solution.
The second place is Capetown, South Africa. About ten years ago, the city was warned that it would require additional water resources in the future. But they procrastinated. In 2014 the six dams that supply water to the city of Capetown were full. But a prolonged three year drought since then has turned their situation from potentially bad to near-catastrophe. Cape Town’s reservoirs are dangerously low, at slightly more than a fifth of their capacity. That’s even worse than it sounds, since the last 10 percent of the water is hard to get.
Four desalination plants are now being built but are only about 50% completed and new water wells are being drilled. A plant to reuse effluent is being built, but their hesitancy to act when they were warned, has now caused the city to advise its 4 million residents that they are approaching “Day Zero,” the day that the city will be forced to shut off taps to homes and businesses because at that time the reservoirs will have gotten critically low!
Responding to this approaching crisis, the city had put in place strict water limits; each person is allowed 13 gallons (50 liters) of water per day. For scale, that’s roughly the amount of freshwater that goes down the drain in three or four flushes of an older toilet. As a result of this mandatory strict water conservation dictum and the lowering of the city’s water pressure, which resulted in a lesser flow rate, and fewer leaks, “Day Zero” has been pushed back from April, 2018 to 2019.
It’s not just the citizens that have had to make do with less water. The farmers were significantly affected too. According to The Verge, citing a city report, the water quota set aside for agriculture is 60 percent lower than in pre-drought years. Once farmers hit their limit, they were cut off, says Janse Rabie, who represents the South African agriculture lobbying group, Agri SA. “These strict water curtailments cost farmers dearly,” Rabie says in an email, “It also had an enormous impact on farm workers (particularly seasonal workers) who could not be employed or had to be let go.” Here water means jobs.
Capetown’s approach has been a combination of lack of foresight and too much wishful thinking that things would just get better. This combination when mixed with procrastination has led to the present problem in this South African city.
The third place is California. Does it have the vision and determination of Israel or will it suffer from the consequences of procrastination and lack of foresight similar to Capetown, So. Africa?
What can Californians realistically look forward to?
State tuned!