Ultra Wealthy Ignore Drought: No, Were Not All Equal When It Comes To WaterBy Mac Slavo Moreover, though Californias sanctions purportedly aim to save water, large mega corporations like Nestle and Walmart are still pulling water out of the ground atfractions of pennies on the dollarand reselling bottled products for hundred-fold or more profits. Its been reported, for example, that Nestle puts a mark up of 53 Million percenton a single bottle. So while California lawmakers argue that the new restrictions make water usage equal for all, the fact is that, as George Orwell so succinctly put it in his classic novella Animal Farm, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the hustling and bustling neighborhoods of the ultra wealthy, where sustainable living advocates like Barbara Streisand and other elite stars continued to use thousands of gallons of water to keep their lawnsgreen. After photos of their opulentlifestyles hit social media in recent months some have pulled back, but others, like Steve Yuhas, argue that if they have the money to pay for the water, including fines, they should be able to use it as they see fit. Its a debate as old as America, and one that is hard to argue with. Yuhas isnt alone in his views. Water is distributed equally when it leaves a particular plant, but once it passes through someones water meter, it is then owned by the person paying for it. If they have the money to pay, then whats the problem? Determining whos right in this argument remains an open question. But what water scarcity in California highlights is that those with money will always have first dibs on resources. Today its water, but according to experts, should Californias drought continue the state will be drywithin a year. That may not sound like a big deal to Americans in the other 49 states, but NASA has warned that the entire U.S. food supply could be threatened: But for the ultra-wealthy and those with means, potential shortages for the general populationare meaningless. As demonstrated with the water battles taking place now, those who dont have enough money to cover rising expenses, be they in the form of higher prices or financial penalties, will have to make due with their government-mandated allotments. If you dont make enough money to acquire those resources we so desperately need to survive and maintain our standard of living, then thats tough. Youll just have to deal with it. In a worst-case scenario, the bigger fish will undoubtedly take from the smaller fish. Consider a situation where a national emergency is declared. Whatever the reason, imagine that access to fresh water, food, gasoline, electricity or other critical resources becomes limited. Analyst Greg Mannarino warns that such a scenario, where resources become scarce,could lead to the deaths of millions. The wealthy will certainly have the ability to pay, even if that means acquiring those resources through black-market deals. Government officials, however, will have another method for taking what they need (or desire). In 2012 President Obama authorized what many have dubbed the Doomsday Executive Order, which essentially gives federal officials authority to seized everything from food producing farms and water wells, to entire industries and the labor forces which make them possible. So, in the end, whether you agree with Steve Yuhas or not, his assessment is accurate. When it comes to resource control and acquisition,politicians and the wealthy, will always be just a little more equal than the rest of us. Thats simply the nature of the beast, so preparing for those resource shortages today may be the only saving grace for the majority of the population who will be left to fend for themselves during a real crisis. Most will ignore the warnings, but as Ayn Rand so eloquently put it, we can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences ofignoring reality. Related Reading: Also See: You can read more from Mac Slavo at his site SHTFplan.com, where this article first appeared. 