Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Liquid loophole?
Re: jnojr July 23, 2015 @ 8:15 a.m. Yes, raising the price makes it more available. First, higher prices encourage conservation like no bleating government announcement ever could. Second, in a free market, higher profits attract investment by those seeking to make money. What's your solution when demand exceeds supply? Leave the price the same? Lower it? What mechanism do you propose, how would it work, and what would it accomplish? Water is a FINITE resource and an absolute requirement for life, like air to breathe. It is required for food, from salad to steak. It is not optional for these uses, it is a true NEED. Landscaping and car washes, and many other USES are not needs but DESIRES. In a lifeboat full of people with a limited amount of fresh water, one should think twice before using it to wash one's hair, for example, when others need to drink it in order to live. When one overwater's one's landscaping and washes one's car or otherwise uses water for LUXURY CONSUMPTION, one is not acting responsibly with respect to society at large. Water rates should be set at an allocation level which will sustain the distribution system and our lives according to priority--first needs, then desires. One cannot achieve perfect equity, but it is possible to make the system more equitable. For residences and some commercial property, for example, allocations can be set based upon lot size and the CIMIS evapotranspiration zone. All of the required data already exists in electronic form, so a huge expenditure is not required for set-up. For example, if you live on the seacoast where the CIMIS map (http://www.cimis.water.ca.gov/App_Themes/images/e… ) indicates an evapotranspiration demand of about three acre-feet per acre per year (in addition to the foot or usually less of precipitation), you would be allocated that much per year (see the CIMIS map), which is enough to have the entire lot planted in grass. If you live in the hotter, drier interior where the evapotranspiration demand is higher, you would be allocated more to achieve a kind of parity, so the level of "suffering" would be equitable. You might be allocated five or more acre feet per acre. Look at the CIMIS map for your evapotranspiration (etozone) and compare it to your water bill's report of your consumption.— July 23, 2015 6:50 p.m.
Liquid loophole?
Here is one discussion of equitable: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equity— July 23, 2015 1:19 p.m.
Putting the cart before the homeless
I rest Wilde's point.— July 23, 2015 10:47 a.m.
Liquid loophole?
The devil's in the details. There is the existing system. There are alternatives. The alternatives can be explored, then the question answered, "Which is better?"— July 23, 2015 10:47 a.m.
Hot pot!
The Constitution had might as well be toilet-paper.— July 22, 2015 10:56 p.m.
Hysteria won't build a stadium
Bring in the kangaroos and put Bauder on trial.— July 22, 2015 10:54 p.m.
Liquid loophole?
Water law is a travesty. It should not be permitted, on the basis of precedent alone, to overpower common sense. Water should be a public commodity, shared equitably.— July 20, 2015 9:10 p.m.
Putting the cart before the homeless
To understand another, one needs to walk a mile (at least) in her/his shoes. "The opposite of love is not hate; the opposite of love is indifference." --Oscar Wilde— July 20, 2015 7:14 p.m.
Thanks anyway on the clean energy option
Legislation?— July 17, 2015 3:44 p.m.
Fate of Chargers predicted
I are so ignert that I don't even know who Judith is, but why shouldn't the figures be in the local headlines?— July 16, 2015 4:43 p.m.