ExxonMobil Fights Back Against Climate Zealots

Subtitle: Un-Constitutional and Baseless Subpoena to Provide Records from Virgin Islands AG

ExxonMobil Corporation, headquartered in Irving, Texas, this week fired back in the battle over global warming.   ExxonMobil filed a lawsuit in Tarrant County seeking declaratory relief from the unlawful subpoena of the Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands.

As background, ExxonMobil is a giant multinational oil company with interests in oil fields, drilling and production systems, pipelines, tankers, terminals, refineries, petrochemical plants, plus natural gas fields, gas pipelines, natural gas plants, LNG plants, LNG tankers, and retail outlets.  ExxonMobil has been accused in the press of conducting research into global warming caused by fossil fuel burning, and suppressing that research in order to promote its oil and gas business.   The AG of the US Virgin Islands accused ExxonMobil as follows:

(quoting from page 1 of the Subpoena)
"You are suspected to have engaged in, or be engaging in, conduct constituting a civil
violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 605, by having engaged or engaging in conduct misrepresenting Your knowledge of the likelihood that Your products and activities have contributed and are continuing to contribute to Climate Change in order to defraud the Government of the United States Virgin Islands ("the Government") and consumers in the Virgin Islands, in violation of 14 V.I.C.§ 834 (prohibiting obtaining money by false pretenses) and 14 V.I.C. § 551 (prohibiting conspiracy to obtain money by false pretenses)."

 ExxonMobil lists a number of defenses in its lawsuit for declaratory relief.  Among these are:

1) US Virgin Islands has no jurisdiction over ExxonMobil because the statute relied upon, CICO, has a 5-year statute of limitations.   The statute "requires the occurrence of at least one predicate act of fraud within the last five years. For more than a decade, however, ExxonMobil has widely and publicly confirmed that it “recognize[s] that the risk of climate change and its potential impacts on society and ecosystems may prove to be significant.”" -- Paragraph 6 of Petition for Declaratory Relief. 

2) "ExxonMobil has engaged in no conduct in the Virgin Islands that could give rise to a violation of Virgin Islands law. ExxonMobil has no physical presence in the Virgin Islands; it owns no property, has no employees, and has conducted no business operations in the Virgin Islands in the last five years" -- paragraph 7 of Petition for Declaratory Relief

3) AG from US Virgin Islands has no reasonable suspicion on which to issue the subpoena -- paragraph 9 and footnote 5, Petition for Declaratory Relief. 

4) ExxonMobil’s constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech. "The subpoena improperly targets political speech and amounts to an impermissible content-based restriction on speech. The effect of the subpoena is to (i) deter ExxonMobil from participating in the public debate over climate change now and in the future and (ii) chill others from expressing an opinion on climate change that runs counter to the view held by a coalition of some state officials, including Attorney General Walker, now and in the future."-- paragraph 66 of Petition for Declaratory Relief.    

Note, ExxonMobil appears to rely on the US Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), in which corporations are held to have rights to free speech, citing Bellotti.  Such freedom is especially important in issues of great political import, including climate change and its various causes, if any.   It is un-Constitutional, a violation of ExxonMobil's rights to free speech, for a government to penalize any participant in a public debate for taking a position on a matter of public discourse.  

5) freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, a Fourth Amendment violation.  The US Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the government in a criminal matter.  ExxonMobil contends that the subpoena is invalid because "it is vastly overbroad, constitutes an abusive fishing expedition, and imposes an unwarranted burden."  -- paragraph 70 of Petition for Declaratory Relief

6) due process of law violation.  ExxonMobil alleges it will "be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" if the subpoena is upheld. -- paragraph 72 of Petition for Declaratory Relief

7) The subpoena constitutes the common law tort of abuse of process.   "Defendants committed an abuse of process under common law by (i) issuing and mailing the subpoena without reasonable suspicion, as required by the authorizing statute, in what amounts to a fishing expedition; (ii) having an ulterior motive for issuing and mailing the subpoena, namely an intent to prevent ExxonMobil from exercising its right to express views disfavored by Defendants and to extract an unwarranted financial settlement from ExxonMobil; and (iii) causing injury to ExxonMobil’s reputation and its ability to exercise its First Amendment rights as a result." -- paragraph 75 of Petition for Declaratory Relief. 

Commentary

This entire episode is extremely interesting for a number of reasons.  The false-alarmists, those climate scientists who fervently believe that man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will result in a catastrophic increase in global temperatures, and their like-minded allies, are reduced to legal action such as this questionable (at best) subpoena.  If the science, the data, the proof, were at all obvious and clear, there would be no need to resort to the courts.   One could, for example and in another context, point to humans with neurological disorders after contact with lead-containing substances as a basis for eliminating lead-based products.   One could point to similar clear linkages between the use of mercury and mercury poisoning.  Yet, false-alarmists cannot point to such clear and obvious evidence.  

Surface Temperatures by Population Size, J. Goodridge
showing no warming in low-population counties

Indeed, there are numerous and valid arguments that any warming that may have occurred is entirely due to humans living in close proximity to one another, as the famous Goodridge graphs showed where zero warming occurred over almost 100 years in California counties with low populations, while substantial measured warming occurred in California counties with populations greater than 1 million.   There is also the absence of predicted outcomes that false-alarmists have made over more than 30 years: polar bears disappearing, snow disappearing, polar ice disappearing, sea levels rising at unprecedented rates, hurricanes and tornadoes occurring more often and with greater severity, and many others. 

The fact that no US state attorney general where ExxonMobil does do business issued the subpoena, but one who obviously has no grounds for such, gives one pause to consider the ramifications.  It may be that the false-alarmists are simply testing the waters, drawing out ExxonMobil to see what defenses they would assert.  It may also be simple grand-standing.   It may also be a ploy to garner public support to the false-alarmists' side and thus harm ExxonMobil by encouraging consumers to not buy their products.  Or, it could be for a host of other reasons.   

The simple fact is that, in the United States, government may not pick and choose those speakers that will be allowed to speak, nor those that will not be allowed to speak on matters that are protected by the First Amendment.  While there are a few categories of unprotected speech, such as defamation, clear and present danger, pornography, and others, the on-going debate over what constitutes climate change and what, if anything, is the cause, is certainly protected speech.  Also, corporations have the right to free speech, as the US Supreme Court has made very clear on many occasions.  

Indeed, "Political speech is “indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.” -- Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765 (1978), at 777

Also, "only when a general political issue materially affects a corporation's business, property or assets may that corporation claim First Amendment protection for its speech or other activities entitling it to communicate its position on that issue to the general public." -- Bellotti, at 772.   In this controversy, clearly ExxonMobil's business will be materially affected if it is not allowed to speak on the issue of climate change. 

All in all, it's been a very interesting week in the climate change and legal arena.  

The Petition for Declaratory Relief, with Attachment A as the Subpoena, and Attachment B as the meeting transcript from a number of state Attorney Generals can be found at this link. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

Coal per Energy Outlook 2016 by ExxonMobil

Subtitle:  Coal Consumption Not Clear - Figures Don't Match

A new Energy Outlook for the next 25 years (2016-2040) from ExxonMobil, EM, (see link) has quite a bit to say about one of the major global fuels, coal.   This article discusses EM's points, and offers a few perspectives consistent with other articles here on SLB.  In short, coal use will decline over the next few decades, on that both SLB and EM agree.   The reasons for the decline are different.  EM states countries' desire to reduce CO2 emissions, in an effort to save the planet from global warming.   SLB contends there is no man-made global warming, only man-made false measurements.  However, SLB contends that there is a limited supply of coal, extractable at economic prices, and that supply will be exhausted within 50 to 60 years.   The time frame to coal exhaustion can be much shorter, if developing countries burn more and more coal relative to current use.  

The EM statements:

"Global demand for (total) energy rises by 25 percent 2014-2040" –EM Energy Outlook 2016, p. 15. 

“The most striking development in power generation is expected to be the shift away from coal – the dominant energy source in this sector – and the rise in cleaner fuels such as natural gas and renewables."  (Ibid, p. 44).  

"Coal provides about 30 percent of world’s electricity in 2040, vs. 40 percent in 2014."   (Ibid, p. 46)


“Coal, currently the world’s second-largest fuel, is expected to see global demand peak around 2025 and then begin to decline. This decline will be led by the industrial and power generation sectors, as businesses improve energy efficiency and switch to fuels with lower CO2 emissions. By 2040, coal will account for 20 percent of global energy demand, down from about 25 percent in 2014.”  (Ibid, p. 56)

Electricity

Analyzing the EM statements, and numbers, it can be seen that tons of coal used for electricity increases almost 24 percent  (assuming that each ton of coal has consistent heating value).  This is from the EM projected increase in electricity production of 65 percent from 2014 to 2040.   Yet, the EM statement on coal providing 30 percent in 2040 vs 40 percent in 2014 of the world's electricity appears to state that coal use will decline.   In fact, the two statements, read together, show that coal use increases 24 percent: as 0.4 x 100 = 40, but 0.3 x 165 = 49.5; then 49.5 divided by 40 is 1.24.    This is a simple calculation where 2014 electricity production is set to 100, and the 2014 production is then 65 percent greater or 165.  

Yet, the EM Outlook has a far different result in the Data table on p. 72 of the Outlook, for coal use in power generation.  There, the number for 2014 is about the same as for 2040: 97 Quads in 2014, and 95 Quads in 2040.   (Quad is quadrillion Btus)   If the Outlook were consistent, then 2040 should have 97 x 1.24 or 120 Quads.    

Global Energy

Next, the global energy statements.  Here, EM states that coal will decline from 25 percent of global energy demand in 2014, to 20 percent in 2040.  However, given the projected increase in global energy demand of 25 percent, the amount of coal used remains constant.  This can be seen by 0.25 x 100 = 25, while 0.2 x 125 = 25.  Again, using simple values, the 100 is global energy demand in 2014, while 125 is the global energy demand in 2040.  

Note, the summary Data table on p. 72 of the Outlook shows 148 Quads in 2014 vs 142 Quads in 2040 for coal world-wide.    148 is close enough to 142 for these purposes, to be essentially no change in coal use.  

Industrial Energy

Where, then, is the decline?  Electrical demand for coal increases, but global energy demand remains constant, per EM.  Therefore, some category must have a decline in coal use.  EM's Outlook has several categories for energy use, electricity, industrial, transportation, and residential plus commercial.   One assumes that agriculture consumes zero energy.   Coal use in transportation is close to zero, or perhaps is included in the catch-all category of "other."    In any event, coal is named in electricity, industrial, and residential plus commercial categories.    The residential plus commercial use is very small to begin with, and declines a bit by 2040.  

The EM Outlook states that coal for industrial purposes will decrease from a bit more than 20 percent in 2014 to approximately 15 percent by 2040, while overall industrial energy grows by 30 percent.   This does, then, show a decline in coal use as 0.22 x 100 = 22, while 0.15 x 130 = 19.5, again where 100 is the 2014 use and 130 is the 2040 use. 

The Data table on p. 72 shows a slight decline from 46 to 44 Quads, 2014 and 2040.   

Commentary by Sowell

It is important to note that ExxonMobil is an oil and gas company, primarily.  They also are active in derivatives from oil such as petrochemicals and lubricating products.   They have a vested interest in selling oil and derivatives, plus selling natural gas.   The Energy Outlook is a convenient way to show all interested stakeholders that the future looks bright for their company, because the demand for their products remains robust.   The company also has a bit of coal mining in the corporate portfolio as ExxonMobil Coal and Minerals Company.  EM conducted some research over the years into coal-to-liquids plants, and coal gasification.   However, it is very clear that oil and gas are more than abundant, while coal is being rapidly exhausted world-wide.  

The Outlook repeatedly describes future activities as moving away from coal, to natural gas because the greenhouse gas emissions are far less.  The above discussion shows where that is likely to occur, in the industrial sector.   EM would be more than happy to provide the natural gas for replacing the coal.  

Earlier on SLB, the stark facts of coal resources, coal consumption, were discussed.  see link.    In summary, there is only approximately 50 years of coal supply remaining, if the present consumption rate continues.  However, developing countries are increasing their annual coal consumption in their efforts to increase electricity production.    

From a power planner's perspective, a coal-fired power plant will last only 40 years, and at most 50 years.   If all countries continue their coal consumption, it would make no sense to build new coal-powered plants at any time after 2025.  However, the US has already passed some forms of regulation on coal (mostly by EPA edicts, not laws passed by Congress and signed by the President).   These coal regulations essentially halted new coal-powered plants, and will very likely result in many coal-powered plants shutting down.   In theory, that would make more coal available to other countries since it will not be burned in the US.  In reality, the US would need major infrastructure to export coal overseas.    

The EM Outlook discusses none of this, not delving into reserves, resources, costs of extraction, and costs of transportation of the various fuels to meet demands in different countries.   Perhaps in future editions those issues will be discussed. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

Energy Outlook 2016 from ExxonMobil

Subtitle:  World Cannot Build More than 500 Nuclear Plants in 25 Years

An Energy Outlook for the next 25 years (to 2040) is published and available for downloading, this one is from ExxonMobil (EM).  see link    It has some interesting points, and this article discusses the nuclear plant aspect.   Another article will discuss the coal aspect.   Essentially, EM anticipates 65 percent growth in electricity demand over the 25 year period, from approximately 20 thousand TWh to 33 thousand TWh (TWH is terra-Watt-hours).   Is the 65 percent growth reasonable?  One can quickly determine that a 2 percent annual growth rate yields 1.64 when compounded 25 years, which is close enough for such endeavors.  

Growth in nuclear plant output is described as: "Nuclear capacity to grow by 85 percent 2014-2040, led by China" - pg 46 of the Outlook.   The implications of this statement, if true, are staggering.   First, the number of nuclear power plants that must be completed and started up, per year on average, is 20 plants per year.    There must be approximately 520 new power plants (a few more or a few less, depending on output) in only 25 years.   The 520 is arrived at as follows.

At present, there are 437 nuclear power plants operating in the world, and 85 percent more is then 808 plants.  However, many of the existing plants are old and will shut down well within 25 years, such as almost every plant in the US, Western Europe, and Japan.  With a conservative estimate of 150 such plants shut down due to old age, that then gives 808-437 + 150 equals 521.   There very well could be more plants shut down due to old age.  

The challenge, then, is how to design, obtain approval to construct, then build and place into operation 20 nuclear power plants per year in each of the next 25 years.   For perspective, World Nuclear Report stated that only 5 new reactors started up in 2014.  (Two of those had construction periods of 31 years (Russia), and 33 years (Argentina).  The other three reactors were all in China).  

One can safely assume that the world will NOT build 520 new nuclear plants over the next 25 years.  The logistics and manufacturing required to support building 20 reactors per year simply does not exist.  To mention merely one of those, there are simply too few manufacturing plants to build the heavy-wall, nuclear-grade reactors to turn out 20 new reactors per year.    In addition to the reactors, the plants also require heavy-duty heat exchangers, large pumps, steam turbines, and very large generators.  

For most countries, the time required to construct a new nuclear power plant is approximately 10 years.   Some, as shown above, require far longer.    

In addition, the cooling water required for the nuclear power plants is enormous.  An earlier article on SLB discussed this see link, showing that nuclear plants consume approximately 4 times the amount of cooling water compared to combined-cycle gas turbine power plants.   

Also, finding suitably safe locations is a serious concern for 520 new nuclear power plants, given the earthquake and tsunami risks, as well as radiation releases and their hazards for populated areas.   Professor Derek Abbot discussed this in his excellent article from 2011, published in Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 99, No. 10, pp. 1611–1617, 2011.  The article title is "Is Nuclear Power Globally Scalable?"    see link The list of problem areas that Professor Abbot discusses includes:

1.  Not enough plant sites (away from population, near cooling water, etc)
2.  Land area required per plant
3.  Embrittlement problem
4.  Entropy problem
5.  Nuclear waste disposal
6.  Nuclear accident rate problem 
7.  Proliferation
8.  Energy of extraction (mining dilute ores for uranium)
9.  Uranium resource limits
10. Seawater extraction for uranium
11. Fast Breeder Reactors
12. Fusion Reactors
13. Materials Resources (materials of construction, rare alloy metals)

14. Elemental diversity

Conclusion

ExxonMobil usually has conservative, reasonable publications, however this one seems a bit off on the nuclear power projections for the next 25 years.   Even if nuclear power plants were accepted as safe and economic alternatives to conventional power generation technologies, there are enormous and insurmountable logistics and regulatory issues to overcome to install the requisite number of plants, more than 500 total in only 25 years.  


Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

The California Goal - Us Four And No More

Subtitle: California Dreamers Need A Lesson In Reality

This post is about the long-term goals in California, as a state, as an economic entity, and the public policies (official, and unwritten) that are or will be implemented to achieve those goals.  The opinions here are mine, but the facts are publicly available.  

In short, California has zero appetite for growth, not population growth, nor economic growth.   The title block, "Us Four And No More" refers to my slogan for this phenomenon, but it is adapted from usage long ago.   Each of the "Four" in the California slogan refers to 4 million population, so "Us Four" is then 16 million population.   A quick look at the population history shows that 16 million is almost exactly the California population in 1960.  

Year      Population, millions

1950       10.5
1960       15.7
1970       19.9
1980       23.7
2015       39.1 (estimated)

The California of 1960 is spoken of wistfully by many people, how it was unspoiled, uncrowded, air was clean, water was plentiful, it was an ideal place by many accounts.   Of course, many of the state highways and interstates were not built then (the first interstate highways began construction in the late 1950s). 

In sharp contrast to today, where the population is straining 40 million, air is polluted, freeways are jammed, parking is impossible to find, housing is outrageously expensive, rents are also very high, jobs are scarce, companies are moving away instead of into California, liberal or progressive views dominate every election and almost every elected seat, water is in chronic shortage, crime is bad and getting worse, racial tensions are high and grow worse with each year, illegal immigration is a big and growing problem, schools are scary places for students to attend and little is learned in them, unemployment is high, taxes are high, in short, there is very little to like about modern California.    

Modern California also imports many things that formerly were made in-state, this list includes automobiles, airplanes, oil for refineries, natural gas for all its uses including power generation and heating fuel, even water is imported from the Colorado River.    Importing Colorado River water is perhaps not a fair criticism since the river does border part of California.  However, it is a fact that automobiles are no longer made in California, unless one counts the few electric cars made by Tesla and perhaps a few other small players.   Airplanes were built here once, but no more.  Oil is and has been for many years imported via tanker ships into the state's refineries, although some oil is also produced in-state.  Natural gas is also imported via pipeline, but again a bit of natural gas is produced in-state. 

What the state seems to have in abundance is food.  California has great amounts of farmland, dairies, and beef cattle production.  However, the agriculture is heavily dependent on water availability.  

One can observe the state's long-term intentions of zero growth, or negative growth (back to the Us Four And No More - 16 million population) by simply observing a few basic infrastructure issues.  First, is water.  

Water in California is a perennial topic due to frequent shortages, droughts, and woefully inadequate storage.  In a state with adequate rain and snow, plus a huge and extensive mountain range with hundreds of valleys, one might expect that water storage would not be an issue.  Yet, it is.  The explanation is that state officials may say one or various things, but the reality is that no more storage is being provided.  Instead, state officials insist that citizens must conserve, use less.  There are now fines and penalties if one does not conserve enough water.    It is notable that the state has a token budget for modifying or expanding the water storage, but even the popular Governor Schwarzenegger could not obtain legislative approval for a new major dam and lake.   In my view, it is never going to happen.   More water means more population, and that simply cannot be tolerated by those who run the state. 

State water managers also make the problem worse by wasting perfectly good water, letting the few storage lakes that exist send precious water down the rivers and into the ocean.  This is done, they claim, to provide adequate room in the storage reservoirs for the Spring snow melt and runoff.   The storage lakes perform double-duty in California, as is the case in many other states: the lakes mitigate or prevent catastrophic flooding, and they provide water year-round.   Many of the lakes also have a third purpose, they generate electricity as the water flows through hydraulic turbines.  (update: note that it is also nearly impossible, and quite time-consuming, to obtain all the permits required to desalinate seawater to provide fresh water to California.)

The next issue is transportation fuels.   The California utopia as seen by the Us Four And No More includes no gasoline cars, instead there will be only electric cars.  They also (not being engineers nor physics majors) intend to ban diesel fuel also.  No word yet on a ban on jet fuel.   With the universities having at least a few professors who understand such basics, it is a wonder that someone has not spoken out and explained that electric-powered trucks simply cannot transport the goods without rapidly draining the batteries.  It is also fairly difficult to imagine how jet airplanes will obtain enough power at sufficiently low weight to take off and fly, absent using jet fuel.  (update 1/13/2018:  Tesla has announced in late 2017 a fully-electric, battery-powered heavy truck for production in 2019 or 2020.   Time will tell if this is an economic choice for trucking companies; see link- end update).  

It is true that the ports in Los Angeles now have some electric-battery powered drayage trucks.   These exist only due to government mandates, not an economic improvement over existing diesel-powered trucks.   It is also true that a battery and solar-cell powered airplane flew in a much publicized trip last year, however, it failed in the round-the-world journey and stopped, exhausted and broken, in Hawaii.  

It seems that the California dreamers equate these things to events in the previous centuries, where if we can just prove it works, the thing will become commonplace.   The Wright brothers and the first airplane flight led to our aviation industry, they point out.   What is apparently lost on these dreamers is that a huge airplane, powered by batteries and solar cells, was able to barely keep itself aloft with one person, the pilot.   Filling a plane like that with 100 people as passengers, and the food and drink they will expect, and a bathroom, and soft chairs with cushioned seats, and various electronics to entertain them in the air, plus any luggage they will insist on bringing along, is simply out of the question for electric powered flight.   Any competent engineer or physics major can and should explain this to the California dreamers. 

Now, to the heavy industries and especially the oil refineries in California.   The dreamers want those shut down and permanently gone.  The goal is, as stated above, only electric vehicles.  One supposes that the state tax revenue that presently flows into the treasury from gasoline taxes will no longer be needed.  It is also somewhat unclear where the lubricating oils and greases will be manufactured to keep the electric vehicles operating and the wheels spinning.     More than this, it is certainly not clear how any construction work will be done, or maintenance of existing infrastructure, without diesel-powered heavy equipment such as cranes, bulldozers, and motor graders.  

Recently, I posted an article on SLB about the ExxonMobil refinery explosion in Torrance in February, 2015  see link.   One of the outcomes of investigations into that explosion is an increased call with greater fervor for yet more regulations on oil refineries.   There was an earlier fire in the Chevron refinery at Richmond, in the San Francisco Bay Area.   With their zealous desire to get rid of oil refineries, the legislature now is considering more stifling regulations (see link to Interagency Refinery Task Force, led by the California Department of Industrial Relations. )

There are of course other regulations in place in California, including climate-change prevention rules under California law AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.  These regulations also impact refineries in a negative manner, but refineries are not alone.  Cement plants, that provide the binder for making concrete used in construction, are also impacted. 

UPDATE 1:   Other future industries in California will include the shipping ports with their unloading and transporting containers across the country.  However, even there the Us Four And No More club made a valiant effort to shut down the ports: they required massive upgrades to the facilities, and forced visiting ships to use a lower-sulfur fuel.  The result, predictably, is a huge and modern port is now under construction in Mexico, where rail will take the containers full of cargo and send them north into the US.  

Airports will also likely continue, because all but the largest aircraft cannot fly much farther than the West Coast when making the trans-Pacific routes from Asia.    However, if and when technological improvements give aircraft longer range, it is already anticipated that many flights will fly over California on their way to destinations such as Dallas, Houston, Denver, and Chicago.   Such improvements already exist with the lighter construction, greater fuel efficiency and longer range as demonstrated by the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Finally, clean industries such as computer technology from Silicon Valley, and the entertainment industries such as tv and film will continue.    

-- End update 1. 

Conclusion

The California dreamers in the Us Four And No More club have a dream: 16 million people, zero industry, and only tourism to bring in money.  Apparently, they think that California is actually Hawaii-East, and tourists will flock to the coastal areas, spend their money and live it up.   Having lived here for 30 years and seen this all at work first-hand, it is now obvious how the game is played and what the end result is.    

It is of course an impossible dream, but the California dreamers have never let that give them pause.   

UPDATE 2: 1-17-2016 -  A bit more on the water issues in California.  Knowing that fresh water is a critical prerequisite to increased population, a state has only a very few choices.  

One, each person and business can consume less water, i.e. conservation.   This is what California has now mandated.  

Two, the state can manage its existing water supplies better, i.e. send less down the rivers into the oceans where it becomes unfit to drink (even for California elites).  This is what California refuses to do, manage the existing resources better.   As stated above, the locations exist for future dams and reservoirs but California refuses to build those. 

Three, the state can obtain additional water supplies from outside the state.  This also is what California refuses to do, with the minor and token exception of one or two very small seawater desalination plants.   Many opportunities exist to import fresh water, including my own idea of NEWTAP, as described here on SLB a few years ago.  see link.   Essentially, a canal or pipeline would be established from the Missouri River to northern New Mexico, where gravity would bring the water through existing rivers into the Colorado River for storage in the existing Lake Mead and Lake Powell.    There are other ways to import water, some are easier to accomplish than others; a pipeline from Canadian rivers to Los Angeles is one idea.  

Four, the state can recycle waste water back into clean water, i.e. treat the effluent water from wastewater treatment plants until it is sufficiently clean for human consumption.  This is another of the things California does.  One can only hope that not too many people become sick or die from drinking improperly purified water from the wastewater treatment plants.   

--  end update 2

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved.