Try this link. 

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.blogspot.com/2009/09/incredible-senate-democrats-vote.html

It seems certain elements in our government would rather destroy people's lives that some kind of a fish. 

A few years ago here in Arizona a small hydro-electric plant was shut down because of some kind of fish that was considered endangered.   

As usual there are two sides to every story. In this case, both sides are extreme in their positions so the truth is probably someplace in the middle.

This is in the national news because Sean Hannity has taken up the cause, even parachuting into the valley for a photo op: "President Obama: Turn on the pumps!"

Here is a link with some opposing views:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/09/17/18622305.php

In reading about it there are some interesting (to me) things I found out:

1. While there are "pockets" of San Joaquin (SQ) Valley where unemployment is 40%, the average for Kearn County is 15% which is only a little above the state wide average rate of 12%. And while the unemployment number of 40% sounds bad, the majority of those unemployed are illegal aliens that Hannity would like to "send back home." Kind of ironic.

2. This isn't a "people vs fish" issue. There are lots of aspects to it, but it is mostly a "farmers vs fisherman" issue. The SQ river flows through the valley and into the San Francisco Bay at a place called "The Delta." The Delta is a very polluted area that is "flushed" by the SQ river. When the SQ river flow is slowed, the pollution builds up and it kills the Salmon and other fishing industry. The fishing industry is also a multi billion dollar a year industry for California. So, what pollutes the Delta? Sewage plants and chemical from Industry. So it also an "industry vs environmentalists/fishermen" issue.

3. There are some relatively simple solutions that have been suggested. The "protected smelt" fish also happens to be a favorite food of larger fish. For $160 million (really not very much in California dollars) screens could be built in front of the federally owned pumps that move the water from the SQ river to the valley that would keep the smelt in the SQ river. But politicians can't decide if California or the Federal government should pay for it. So it is a "state vs federal" issue.

4. One of the coolest things that I read is that in June, they turned the pumps back on (contrary to what Hannity said) and pumped so much water from the SQ river into the valley that the river actually flowed backwards. I would just like to see that.

5. It has never been about diverting the entire river into the valley. It has been an argument of diverting 7% the fishermen want, or 9% of the river flow the farmers want. From some of the reports, I thought it was an "all or nothing" sort of thing.

6. The fishermen accuse the farmers of poor land management. That is, planting the same water intensive crops on the same ground year after year, and using pesticides and fertilizer in such a way that the land has actually become "unfarmable." I don't know about that. But I do know that farmers tend to do what works year after year. I really hope they have been rotating crops, letting the ground "rest" for a season to recover and such. Perhaps this is a huge wake up call for them that they can't continue to rely on unlimited water. As I said, I don't know, but I can see this as a legitimate argument, at least to a some small degree.

7. It seems to me that this is just another example of failed water policy in California that has been going on for years and years, and is exacerbated by the third year of below average rainfall across the state. But you know, there always seems to be enough water for all those swimming pools.

8. One of the sad to me things is that since the federal government actually owns the pumps in question, it is not a problem that the state or the feds can solve on their own. They have to work together. Which likely means nothing good will happen.

And then there is all that Pacific Ocean water off their coast. I guess desalination plants are just to expensive. But they seem to work in other parts of the world. Of course, it would "ruin" some of those cool beaches, I guess.

It seems to me that the whole problem is there just isn't enough water in California for every-one's needs. I'm just glad I don't live in California. It sure seems like a screwed up place.


-- Edited by Wonder Boy on Saturday 26th of September 2009 02:38:49 PM