Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Remember That Empty Reservoir in L.A.?
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:23:46 +1300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <vmk8j1$2leac$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vmi2c9$5jon$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 02:23:47 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="045b8f38630079e7c07b7b8eb6c60044";
	logging-data="2799948"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Jh32nQDp8zrbQpTbsv1OvMUawW0SxP1E="
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FP1Gm+CUYGuYsatsY1Lt3qSxYxY=
Bytes: 2399

On 1/18/2025 8:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Well, it's still empty and the Santa Anas are expected to kick up again next
> week.
> 
> Bad enough that it was empty the first time around but they've had two weeks
> to fill it and not one drop has been sent up there in that time.

I don't know about that particular Los Angeles reservoir, but most 
water reservoirs are usually filled by rainfall. It would take far 
longer than two weeks of rainfall to make any significant difference.



> The three million gallons LAFD had to work with before the hydrants ran dry
> lasted them 17 hours. If they'd had the 117 million gallons in that reservoir
> available, a little quick math indicates it would have lasted 663 hours before
> running out. That's 28 days.
> 
> Oh, and have I mentioned that we only have half the fire department we need?
> The National Fire Institute, which sets standards for municipal fire
> departments nationwide, says you need 1.8 firefighters for every 1000
> residents. Los Angeles has 0.9. Exactly half of what a city this size needs.
> We're also 62 fire stations short of what is recommended. Sixty-fucking-two.
> But never fear! We've met and *exceeded* our quota of DEI executives, so
> that's reassuring.
> 
> I swear to god, these 'progressive' Democrats in charge of the place are
> actively trying to destroy the city. I mean, if it was your goal to destroy
> Los Angeles, what would you do differently?