Bill to regulate California groundwater passes in state legislature


Backlighting

Recommended Posts

What happens in a life boat? The first thing the master of the crew must do is ration water.

Aquifers cannot be privately owned. There is no practical way of fencing them, or subdividing them into individually managed portions. There is no My aquifer and Your aquifer, there is THE aquifer. Anything done on one portion affects the adjacent portions.

Here is the order that should be imposed. People have first crack at the water to drink and stay alive. THEN the water can be allocated or even sold at a bid price to the cash crop farmers. No one can claim true ownership to a drop of water that they did not create with their own labor or drill to get from an aquifer not previously accessed. In Southern California virtually all water is gotten originally from the Colorado River water channels constructed at public expense over 70 years ago. If the farmers want to -own- the water they use they will have to catch it from the sky which is rather difficult during a drought.

Well gentleman, we have finally gone to the mattresses (struggle in a Mafia like gang war)

Ba'al Chatzaf

*aquifer here means a natural underground collection of water in the rocks, or a natural river. In California these means the Colorado River in the South and the Feather River in the North plus some other lesser Rivers. By and large, God made the Rivers and Man made the dams and spillways. Lake impounds behind (man made) dams are public entities if the dams were built at public expense. No individual or firm can claim an impound lake behind a public dam as his or its very own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a single aquifer. There is not a multitude of private aquifers. In other words, the resource in question is "out there" instead of "in here", so California's government is not sticking it's nose into the latter. Water law is tied to both property law and environmental law. Water rights are created by water law, so water law is what governs these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sampson:

The Federal EPA has been, and is, actively sucking up all the water in the US and placing all water under its regulatory control.

Do you support that?

If not, to what degree would you go as the head of the EPA?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sampson:The Federal EPA has been, and is, actively sucking up all the water in the US and placing all water under its regulatory control.Do you support that?If not, to what degree would you go as the head of the EPA?A...

You first need to define "control". If your definition of "control" is "any regulation whatsoever", I'll have to disagree with that definition. To say that it's "sucking up all the water" seems like a great exaggeration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sampson:The Federal EPA has been, and is, actively sucking up all the water in the US and placing all water under its regulatory control.Do you support that?If not, to what degree would you go as the head of the EPA?A...

You first need to define "control". If your definition of "control" is "any regulation whatsoever", I'll have to disagree with that definition. To say that it's "sucking up all the water" seems like a great exaggeration.

Samson:

Hyperbole is permitted in debate,"sucking up all the water" is just that.

The EPA is incrementally extending it's regulatory control over all the ground water in the US.

A federal district judge Thursday shot down a “novel” EPA attempt to regulate the flow of water as a pollutant, stopping dead in its tracks what otherwise would have been a major regulatory expansion.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady handed a significant legal victory to Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, who is running for governor of the Commonwealth.

Cuccinelli personally argued the case before O’Grady on Dec. 14, warning the EPA’s attempt to regulate the flow of water into state waterways would amount to a “tremendous expansion” of its regulatory power.

O’Grady appeared to concur in his opinion, writing: "The Court sees no ambiguity in the wording of [the federal Clean Water Act]. EPA is charged with establishing [limits on] the appropriate pollutants; that does not give them the authority to regulate nonpollutants.”

Assuming the judgment withstands appeal, it would spare Fairfax County an estimated $300 million in compliance costs. Nationwide, three other lawsuits against the EPA’s recent assertion of its authority to regulate water flow are pending.

Cuccinelli commented in a statement after the ruling: "EPA was literally treating water itself -- the very substance the Clean Water Act was created to protect -- as a pollutant. This EPA mandate would have been expensive, cumbersome, and incredibly difficult to implement."

“And it was likely to do more harm than good,” he added, “as its effectiveness was unproven and it would have diverted hundreds of millions of dollars Fairfax County was already targeting for more effective methods of sediment control."

The Virginia Attorney General portrayed the EPA rainwater regulation as a classic case of bureaucratic overreach.

"EPA's thinking here was that if Congress didn't explicitly prohibit the agency from doing something, that meant it could, in fact, do it," said Cuccinelli in his statement.

"Logic like that would lead the EPA to conclude that if Congress didn't prohibit it from invading Mexico, it had the authority to invade Mexico. This incredibly flawed thinking would have allowed the agency to dramatically expand its power at its own unlimited discretion. Today, the court said otherwise.”

The 1972 Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to establish a limit, called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), for how much of a pollutant it will allow to enter a waterway.

But the Accotink TMDL would have ordered state and local officials to reduce almost by half the amount of stormwater that would flow into the creek. That influx, the EPA said, was stirring up sediment in the waterway, and harming worms and insects that help keep the creek clean.

But O’Grady said the EPA needs congressional authorization in order to issue such regulations.

"Stormwater runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it," O'Grady said.

Cuccinelli, the conservative Republican who is running for governor against former DNC chief Terry McAuliffe, told Newsmax TV in an exclusive December interview that he was reaching across the aisle to work with Democrats in order to try to rein in the EPA.

“You know it’s bad when a partisan Democrat board of supervisors, like Fairfax County, will join us to sue the EPA,” he said. “That’s how bad it’s gotten.”

Cuccinelli, a former three-term state senator from Northern Virginia who is seen as an unabashed champion of the Old Dominion’s grass-roots conservative community, added: “I refer to it as the Employment Prevention Agency. They’re very good at that.”

The legal confrontation that led to Thursday’s verdict stems from longstanding EPA concerns about the health of aquatic life in Fairfax County’s Accotink Creek, which ultimately feeds into the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay.

The Democratic-dominated Fairfax County Board of Supervisors was initially reluctant to join forces with Cuccinelli, concerned with the optics of teaming up with the stalwart Republican conservative in an election year.

But in July, facing hundreds of millions of dollars in compliance costs, the Supervisors decided they had to have the attorney general’s legal firepower on their side if they hoped to prevail over the increasingly assertive EPA, led by outgoing administrator Lisa Jackson.

Fairfax County Supervisor John Cook, a Republican, told the Washington Post: “When people talk about federal agencies running amok, this is exactly what it looks like.

The EPA’s overreach is so extreme that the Democrats on the board realized that, even in an election year, they had to do this for the county.”

O’Grady’s ruling vindicated Cuccinelli’s argument that the EPA had exceeded its legal authority in granting itself the authority to regulate water flow where no such authority existed.

“If you want to boil down what ties us all together as Americans,” Cuccinelli told Newsmax, “it’s that is a nation of laws and not of men. Some people in government forget that sometimes.”

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

The EPA has attempted to control rain water.

Here is the link to Fox's take on the O'Grady decision:

Do you support the EPA on this policy that they tried to get through the courts?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EPA annual budget $8 billion / 16,000 full-time employes = $500,000 per employee

Denver EPA administrator Howard Cantor asking employees to please not leave feces in the hallway. [Washington Post]

An EPA employee has been viewing pornography while at work and received performance awards for his time at the agency. The employee was even watching porn when inspector general agents visited his office. The employee had 7,000 porn files on his computer and had been watching porn for two to six hours per day since 2010. This employee still works at the EPA. Another EPA employee was actually selling jewelry and weight loss pills out of her office. Renee Page is director of the agency’s Office of Administration, but that didn’t stop her from selling her own products during business hours using her government email account, according to the OIG. Page also hired 17 of her family members and friends as paid interns. She paid her daughter — who also works at EPA — from her agency’s budget account. Instead of being punished, Page received a prestigious Presidential Rank Award in 2010, for which she got $35,000 bonus in cash. [Daily Caller]

As a senior policy adviser in the EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Beale dealt with his workplace malaise by convincing his bosses that he was a CIA operative whose top-secret work required him to be out of the office for long periods of time—including one stretch that lasted 18 months. Sometimes Beale claimed to be in Pakistan. Other times he claimed to be at CIA HQ in Langley. In reality, the agency’s top climate-change expert spent most of his time puttering around his Northern Virginia home or at his vacation house on the Cape, collecting his salary (plus bonuses!) while doing zero work. To break the monotony, he would take deluxe personal trips, on the EPA’s dime, of course, running up fat tabs for first-class airfare, limos, and five-star hotels. [Daily Beast]
In its coal-plant proposal, the EPA admitted that Carbon Capture and Storage would increase the capital cost of every new coal plant built in this country by about 35%. Even with this staggering price tag, the agency still found the technology economically viable (and since then, the agency has given no indication that its position has changed). Meanwhile, an EPA regional office and its administrative judges decide that a 25% capital cost increase is prohibitively expensive. The agency is either incredibly sloppy or simply incompetent. [WSJ]
HELP WANTED
DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED RISK INFORMATION

ANNOUNCEMENT: RTP-ORD-42-2014-0005
LOCATION: Arlington, Virginia
SALARY: $157,100.00 to $200,000.00 / Per Year

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR

ANNOUNCEMENT: EPA-SES-2014-0040
LOCATION: Denver, Colorado
SALARY: $120,749.00 to $181,500.00 / Per Year

SENIOR ATMOSPHERIC SCIENTIST

ANNOUNCEMENT: RTP-ORD-42-2014-0006
LOCATION: Durham, North Carolina
SALARY: $153,885.00 to $200,000.00 / Per Year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was supposed to be a cartoon attached, however, I cannot get the image to "take" in the post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

And now Governor Moonbeam has taken over.

Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the "fish" they are "preserving" wherein they have decimated certain counties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Moonbeam is the California governor Jerry Brown. He has issued an executive order restricting water use. CNN says it will serve to reduce water consumption by the following:

• Impose significant cuts in water use on campuses, golf courses, cemeteries and other large landscapes.

• Replace 50 million square feet of lawns throughout the state with "drought-tolerant landscaping."

• Create a temporary, statewide consumer rebate program to replace old appliances with water efficient models.

• Prohibit new homes and developments from irrigating with potable water unless water-efficient drip irrigation systems are used.

• Ban watering of ornamental grass on public street medians.

• Require agricultural water users to report more water use information to state regulators, increasing the state's ability to enforce against illegal diversions and waste.


The CNN story notes earlier actions taken by the governor. All these 'water emergency' edicts, orders and legislative action are to form a rational response to the current California mega-drought. The governor used some stark optics to announce executive action -- from a brown meadow in the Sierra Nevada mountains, at a snowpack monitoring station. I was struck by the optics -- here should be expected a five foot snowpack under normal conditions, here for the first time there is next to nothing. The figures (snowpack/water content) and images are sobering. Here's one from the Weather channel link above that compares snowpack in 2014 with 2015 (more information on the giffed images from NASA's earth observatory here):

ca-snowpack-15vs14-650.gif

If we had an Objectivist in the California executive, what would this person do in face of these unprecedented challenges?

(I don't know what Adam had in mind with 'the "fish"' a certain "they" did something dire in support of or how this pertains to drought. Adam -- do you mean something like watershed management or wetlands management or water-flow set-asides for certain rivers?)

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what an Objectivist in the Executive would do, but I imagine a rational approach would be:

1. Deal with the emergency.

2. After the emergency passes, deal with the cause of the emergency when possible, or at least make provisions so a repeat will not be so bad.

I suspect Brown is going to:

1. Deal with the emergency.

2. After the emergency passes, increase the cause of the emergency and destroy provisions to save some more fucking fish.

:smile:

I'm no expert, but I hear irrigation is not a bad thing.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I don't know what Adam had in mind with 'the "fish"' a certain "they" did something dire in support of or how this pertains to drought. Adam -- do you mean something like watershed management or wetlands management or water-flow set-asides for certain rivers?)

August 11, 2009

Water is our life - it's our jobs and it's our food," said Ryan Jacobsen, executive director of the farm bureau in Fresno County. "Without a reliable water supply, Fresno County's No. 1 employer - agriculture - is at great risk."

The drought would cause an estimated $1.15 billion dollar loss in agriculture-related wages and eliminate as many as 40,000 jobs in farm-related industries in the San Joaquin Valley alone, where most of the nation's produce and nut crops are grown, said Lester Snow, director of the Department of Water Resources.

Jeff Peracchi, a pomegranate and grape grower in Huron, said he was laying off employees because without water, there wouldn't be much fruit to pick.

"I can't just say I won't farm this year - I have to do something. But I'm having to lay off guys who have been with us for years," Peracchi said. "At this point, I'm planning to farm to keep the fruit as healthy as I can, but I'm not sure I'm going to be able to be profitable."

California's agricultural industry typically receives 80 percent of all the water supplies managed by the federal government - everything from far-off mountain streams and suburban reservoirs. The state supplies drinking water to 23 million residents and 755,000 acres of irrigated farmland.

Farms supplied by flows from the state would still get 15 percent of their normal deliveries, but the combined state and federal cutbacks would leave more than 1 million acres of fields and orchards with no aboveground water supply, Snow said.

Water for crops was restricted by court decisions cutting back deliveries that flow through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a freshwater estuary home to the delta smelt, a fish scientists believe is on the brink of extinction.

Dwindling supplies would have to be routed to cities to ensure residents, hospitals and fire crews have enough to meet minimum health and safety needs, said Don Glaser, the federal reclamation bureau's Mid-Pacific Region director.

A drought?

Self imposed by the oppressor state?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I don't know what Adam had in mind with 'the "fish"' a certain "they" did something dire in support of or how this pertains to drought. Adam -- do you mean something like watershed management or wetlands management or water-flow set-asides for certain rivers?)

August 11, 2009

Farms supplied by flows from the state would still get 15 percent of their normal deliveries, but the combined state and federal cutbacks would leave more than 1 million acres of fields and orchards with no aboveground water supply, Snow said.

Water for crops was restricted by court decisions cutting back deliveries that flow through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a freshwater estuary home to the delta smelt, a fish scientists believe is on the brink of extinction.

A complicated subject, California water. I'm not sure where exactly your quote came from, but I did find a Huffington Post AP story that looks likely, for those who want to see the full context. Please add links for those who don't enjoy the hunt as much as me.

I did some Scherk-style digging and reading, and am a lot more informed about the delta smelt, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the history of federal and state water schemes, the regime of water-rights, and the effect of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation.

Though you didn't offer much commentary, I guess you think that the 2009 Ninth Circuit court decision -- mandating water in the delta be managed to preserve an endangered species -- had a large role to play in the water emergency. I can understand this. From my research the effect of withholding water from the delta from 'customers' further down the road (in the Central Valley) looks significant. The courts look somewhat unbalanced -- even the Supreme Court refused to hear the final smelt appeal -- for giving water rights to a fish instead of a farmer -- especially when said fish numbers are presently tiny!

Of course there is much to be argued about here: would there have been take-ups of water from the delta for other users even if there was no mandate to 'save' the smelt? Has the drought already effected the ability of federal/state schemes to take water from the delta? Is there a quantifiable amount of water that has been routed to the lower reaches of the delta system, denied to users elsewhere?

I found out the sad news that the delta smelt is functionally extinct. This means that spawning smelt numbers have crashed. This also means that the fish and wildlife constraints on the Bureau (on pumping water out of the delta to protect smelt from spawning season suck-up) have had to be mostly lifted -- since there are almost zero fish to be found, the pumps that would have sucked them up and deposited them in canals for farms can be turned on during the restricted season.

So, a million acre-feet of water each year since 1999 have failed to save the fish. Onward! It's still a species with some wild remnants, but most smelts reside and reproduce in the lab. When the drought is over, the particular spawing reaches of the delta which remain could be repopulated.

A drought?

Yes, that's right. A drought, a devastating drought, and a drought not caused by a fish.

Self imposed by the oppressor state?

Well, no. Or maybe. You would have to make a case for this notion. You might argue that 'the state' in the form of municipalities, water districts, regional and state-level water control boards, etcetera has exacerbated the effects of the drought, or mismanaged the resources under its varied remits -- or you could argue that everything Jerry Brown has done on this issue is stupid. That would be an interesting argument.

If I was making this kind of argument I would try to quantify things. How much water was 'diverted' to the river delta in acre-feet. How much is pumped south in the best of times. How much is pumped from groundwater by these users in drought years, and compared to flush water years, and so on.

If you would argue that drying out the lower reaches of the delta by diverting all its water to farmers will solve a 'phony drought' situation, or that there is enough above-ground water in the system to give every user their normal pull ... I'd disagree.

Now that I have puzzled my way through California Water Woes 101, I return to the remark upthread that triggered my study:

Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the "fish" they are "preserving" wherein they have decimated certain counties.

"This" means the California governor's announcement of new conservation rules -- as I linked to above. "'Fish"' means the delta smelt (though it could also refer to salmon). "Preserving" means measures taken to preserve, enhance and reinforce habitat/spawning grounds. "They" means the federal fish and wildlife or other agencies that have a claim on water resources, or maybe just Them. a rough grouping of bad actors, as in statists, environmentalists, the EPA, the Clean Water Act functionaries, ecologists, fish scientists, yadda yadda.

So, I get all that, but am still stumped on 'wherein Them decimated certain counties.'

Adam, thanks for provoking me to get partially-informed on the welter of issues and facts and claims surrounding Them and the Smelt. Let me know what you meant by 'decimated' and which are the 'certain counties' and I can do some more work to understand what your arguments are. A charitable reading of your remark about Them is something like this: environmental regulations have played a part in deepening the crisis as it pertains to farmers, leaving them with fewer water resources than they would have if we did not give a shit about some useless fish.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is why I never have a personal problem with engaging in argumentation with you because we both benefit.

I will make sure of the precise counties and I have not read the 9th Circus' Circuit's decision which I will look at a little later today.

Nice factual statement by the way.

A...

It is a day for the rebirth of reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will make sure of the precise counties ...

drought-monitor-map-300x231.jpg

Governor Jerry Brown’s emergency drought declaration on Friday came on the heels of the U.S. Department of Agriculture designating nearly half of California’s counties as “natural disaster areas,” meaning farmers and ranchers will be eligible for federal low-interest emergency loans.

While the latest U.S. drought monitor shows nearly 63 percent of California in the “extreme drought” category (see above map), the feds named 27 countries, including multiple in Bay Area, as primary natural disaster areas:

Alameda

Alpine

Amador

Calaveras

Contra Costa

El Dorado

Fresno

Inyo

Kings

Kern

Los Angeles

Madera

Mariposa

Merced

Mono

Monterey

Sacramento

San Benito

San Bernardino

San Joaquin

San Luis Obispo

Santa Clara

Santa Barbara

Stanislaus

Tulare

Tuolomne

VenturaUSDA officials also listed neighboring California counties where farmers and ranchers will qualify for natural disaster assistance:

Orange

Riverside

Santa Cruz

Sutter

Placer

San Mateo

Solano

Yolo

“Our hearts go out to those California farmers and ranchers affected by recent natural disasters,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on the USDA website. “President Obama and I are committed to ensuring that agriculture remains a bright spot in our nation’s economy by sustaining the successes of America’s farmers, ranchers, and rural communities through these difficult times. We’re also telling California producers that USDA stands with you and your communities when severe weather and natural disasters threaten to disrupt your livelihood.”

Residents and businesses in all California counties have been asked to reduce their water use by 20 percent. Meanwhile, a wildfire in southern California has scorched more than 1,709 acres.

At least one Bay Area county, Marin, has started tapping into its reserve water supply.

Friday’s drought announcement was the third statewide drought declaration since 1987.

US-drought-map-300x231.jpg

http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2014/01/17/california-drought-feds-declare-27-counties-as-natural-disaster-areas/

Carly "Glinda" Fiorina, the good witch has made the claim that this is a "man made drought."

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is part of her statement:

“With different policies over the last 20 years, all of this could be avoided,” Fiorina, a likely 2016 Republican presidential contender, said in an interview with radio host Glenn Beck. “Despite the fact that California has suffered from droughts for millennia, liberal environmentalists have prevented the building of a single new reservoir or a single new water conveyance system over decades during a period in which California’s population has doubled.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/06/carly-fiorina-on-the-calif-crisis-thats-a-classic-case-of-liberals-being-willing-to-sacrifice-other-peoples-lives-and-livelihoods/

That argument has some real legs...not Carly, her mind.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is part of her statement:

“With different policies over the last 20 years, all of this could be avoided,” Fiorina, a likely 2016 Republican presidential contender, said in an interview with radio host Glenn Beck. “Despite the fact that California has suffered from droughts for millennia, liberal environmentalists have prevented the building of a single new reservoir or a single new water conveyance system over decades during a period in which California’s population has doubled.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/06/carly-fiorina-on-the-calif-crisis-thats-a-classic-case-of-liberals-being-willing-to-sacrifice-other-peoples-lives-and-livelihoods/

That argument has some real legs...not Carly, her mind.

A...

They hate what happened to Hetch Hetchy, which went from Yosemite-type scenery to the big San Francisco reservoir.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is part of her statement:

“With different policies over the last 20 years, all of this could be avoided,” Fiorina, a likely 2016 Republican presidential contender, said in an interview with radio host Glenn Beck. “Despite the fact that California has suffered from droughts for millennia, liberal environmentalists have prevented the building of a single new reservoir or a single new water conveyance system over decades during a period in which California’s population has doubled.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/06/carly-fiorina-on-the-calif-crisis-thats-a-classic-case-of-liberals-being-willing-to-sacrifice-other-peoples-lives-and-livelihoods/

That argument has some real legs...not Carly, her mind.

So, I take it that your opinion is Glinda's opinion, and that is the sum of your research into California's drought.

Here's a Fresno Bee story that details current or pending legislative plans for reservoir expansion. Some of the experts consulted say, in effect, that new reservoirs do not make water. Here's a couple of interesting graphics from that story:

waterprojects.gif

waterbig.gif

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, just the beginning.

From what I am understanding, in some of my preliminary reading, the "weather and climate" of this area has had these cycles for at least one to two hundred years.

The average rainfall for this 30 year period is only 16.58 in (42.1 cm), while the average was 19.23 in (48.8 cm) for 1908-48. In a very real sense, a drought of major magnitude occurred between 1948 and 1978, with a shorter drought period in 1894-1903. Earlier droughts are known less exactly, but from old documents it seems clear that rainfalls in 1785-1810 and 1819-1833 were below normal. It is reported that between 1828 and 1830, Los Angeles went 22 months without rainfall, meaning that one whole winter's rainy season must have been skipped. Another extremely severe drought occurred in 1862-1864. These severe droughts of the 1830’s and 1860’s resulted in a tremendous loss of cattle and horses, and coincided with the establishment of many exotic plants (European 'weeds' for the most part) in the State. Apparently these droughts, coupled with extreme overgrazing by cattle, gave the exotics (particularly annual grasses) an advantage over the native flora that has not been reversed. The 1915-1942 period was much wetter than normal. Extremely wet years do not seem to show any pattern: 3 of the 5 years since 1892 with rainfall greater than 30 in (76cm) occurred

Of one item, I am certain.

Hierarchies of valuing species starts at the top with humans.

You look lower down on the value list for species like the Delta Dawn fish.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LInk, please, Glinda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That argument has some real legs...not Carly, her mind.

Adam,

I like some of the things I have heard from Carly recently (actually I really like them), but I have something non-political about her that sticks in my craw.

I used to use HP printers and loved them, that is, until she became CEO. Suddenly, the new printers came with really small ink cartridges that needed replacement more often (like really really really more often), the ink price went through the roof, which is hell on someone who used to print as much as I did, and you had to run those printers with HP software that installed a mountain of crap in your computer, mostly malware, which is hell on earth period.

In other words, she took an already loyal customer base and fucked that segment of customers over big time to milk it for as much money as she could squeeze out of it while she helped move the company into making actual computers (by merging with Compaq, not by an inhouse project or R&D).

If that is an indication of her management style in a large corporation, I wonder if she would be the same in a government position.

My gut says yes and that always made me pause when thinking about her political aspirations. Habits like management style don't tend to change even when a person talks a pretty game.

Maybe she changed over time, though. I'm watching to see.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now