Maybe the reason the main stream press does not cover it is because no one has come up with a new answer to the question, what happens when there is not enough water to go around?

More water for the farmers means less water for the fish, and less fish for the fisherman. Who is more deserving, farmers or fisherman?

Mark

More storage also equals less water in the rivers and streams. You do not seem to grasp the concept of limits. There is only so much fresh water in the state.

I agree, it is not an either or. There are many "eithers" and many "ors." That's the point. There is too much demand.

If there is only so much water, I prefer the government (our representatives) allocate the water. Many people feel the Westlands to be a poor use of water, even if they have the money to pay for it.

Here is a question for you, is fresh water a right, or a privilege that must be payed for?

Mark

So you want a government bail out? More government spending? We need less government, not more government.
The farmers need to come up with the money for a the water them selves. Besides, there is no drought since there is no climate change.

"There is too much demand."

There is not too much demand when, as Jack has indicated, you make provision. California, and particularly the SoCal area, has needed a better water storage and delivery system for a long time and nothing has been done so that during drought years we are always experiencing crisis. If the storage problems were adequaltely addressed the water at those storage facilities could be managed with greater efficiency for all needs. Rediculous environmentalist regulation has taken the lead over common sense and common decency.

Mark you don't seem to grasp the notion of human beings in need of both food and water.

Jim: "So you want a government bail out?"

No. What I want is a common sense list of priorities and an environmentalist community that is willing to be innovative, flexible, aware that we won't always have drought years, and inclusive of the needs of industry and human beings.

"Besides, there is no drought since there is no climate change."

Oh please...weather patterns happen...they happened back before there were SUV's all over the road. Ever heard of the Oaklahoma dust bowl of the 1930's?

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/es/ok/dustbowl_1

During the great dust storms of the 1930s in Oklahoma, the weather threw up so much dirt that, at times, there was zero visibility and everything was covered in dirt. No matter how tightly Oklahomans sealed their homes, they could not keep the dirt from entering. Dust storms were the result of drought and land that had been overused. Drought first hit the country in 1930. By 1934, it had turned the Great Plains into a desert that came to be known as the Dust Bowl.

See the history in photographs here:

http://www.weru.ksu.edu/new_weru/multimedia/dustbowl/dustbowlpics.html

There are ways to manage water to the benefit of everyone and the environment...it's time forn environmentalists to let go of their romantic pristine ideas (they have anyway since they are willing to throw up huge ugly wind and solar farms) and think about humans for a change. Fish can be managed without endangering the lives and livlihoods of humans.

Tina,

Agriculture uses 80% of the water in the state, and most of the food is exported. California residents are facing water shortages because there is not enough to go around. From the look of us, we appear to have enough food.

Ecosystems need water too. It is not "wasted" if it flows down the river into the bay and out to sea. Some businesses depend on those ecosystems for their livelihood. Are some businesses more "equal" than others?

I understand how you would not see fish and other animals having "rights" to water, but you avoided my question. So, I will restate it

Do California citizens have a right to clean water, or is it all privately owned, and therefore available to highest bidder?

Mark

Mark I'm not certain if you are asking a legal or philosophical question. Both California and the Federal Government have laws that determine water rights and use. Court cases make those things changeable at times.

I come from the point of view that we have plenty (abundance) and all that is required of us is that we manage what we have with intelligence and wisdom. A few short years ago we witnessed massive flooding in Northern California. It was rumored at the time that the reservoirs could have trapped more of that water which would have resulted in less less flooding and more available water. I don't know if that's true or not but I do know there are ways to trap and store water. (Jack, I did read today that (finally) SoCal is beginning to see the light and do just that.)

Mark, please don't assume that I don't care about fish, animals or industries dependent on waterways, like fishing. Also don't assume I don't care about the environment in general.

"Agriculture uses 80% of the water in the state"

I am by no means a water expert but that seems inconsistent with the following information:

http://www.csustan.edu/ppa/shm/Pages/psci1201/water_12.pdf

Quick Facts on California's Water

More than 100 million acre-feet of the rain and snow received soaks into the ground, evaporates, or is used by native vegetation. That leaves about 71 million acre-feet of usable surface water. Of that water,
*36% flows out to the ocean
*28% is legally committed to wild and scenic rivers and San Francisco Bay- Delta outflow
*28% is used by agriculture
*7% is used by cities and industry

I don't know how old this paper is and I don't know if court cases or other changes have resulted in different percentages. Farming is a well established industry in California so I can't imagine that the water needs of farmers have changed all that much. If anything the demand from farmers may be smaller now than in past years due to conservation innovation. In any case I don't see, based on these percentages, that the amount of water the farmers use is unreasonable and, one could argue that the 28% allocated for environmental use plus the 36% that flows to the ocean (also environmental) is perhaps a bit unreasonable at 64%.

"From the look of us, we appear to have enough food."

So the markets (people) for the food that is grown in California should go without that food or get it elsewhere just because environmentalists refuse to include the needs of the farmers and their employees when seeking workable water solutions?

Here's an observation. A lot of people who actively support or are involved in environmental projects and organizations are academics and researchers. They depend on money "given" to do what they do...they depend on grants or salaries paid from taxes or donations. They are also focused on this single issue and they have very little, if any, understanding of what it takes to produce wealth or what it is to be responsible for the livlihoods of employees. To them life is a science project. It amazes me that they can get deeply involved in the survival of a small fish, the smelt, with all the passion and compassion anyone could possibly muster but they are heartless and sometimes cruel when it comes to survival for fellow human beings who have obligations to meet and people depending on them. They are unmoveable and inflexable and often see things only in extremes makingf negotiations impossible.

The other thing that has always bothered me is the attitude that if you disagree with the environmentalists' "solution" you must be a careless earth and animal killer totally lacking in information or understanding regarding the environment. Most of us that do question the extremes of environmental activism do so based on the word of experts that have stepped forward rather than relying simply on our own limited knowledge or an attitude of intolerance and indifference.

Farmers are good hard working people. They have dealth with weather issues, oftentimes heartbreaking weather issues, for a long, long time. That they must now also deal with unreasonable, unhethical, unbending environmentalist nuts is more than they should have to bear. I'm sorry Mark if that sounds harsh to you but it is flat out ugly to see these farmers getting zero water...something in this decision stinks and I have a feeling, given the "change" going on in Washington, that the stink is very very green!

I will be happy to apologize if anyone can show me that I am wrong. (not call me names or accuse me of things but bring me the evidence to show I am wrong)

Tina,

Here are the facts you requested.

From the SF Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/07/BA7H12PDTU.DTL

The report, titled "More with Less: Agricultural Water Conservation and Efficiency in California - A Focus on the Delta," stresses that agriculture remains an important part of California's economy. However, with farmers using about 80 percent of the water drawn from the critically ill Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, researchers said agricultural water conservation must expand - and quickly.

The article cites the California Department of Water Resources. I tried to find their report, but their site is just too big. Many studies cite the figure that agriculture uses "80% of the developed water in California." That last part may explain the difference. You used rainfall. I was quoting developed use.

I am hard pressed to find these dams you say environmentalists stopped? Sites reservoir? Okay. Auburn Dam was done in by seismic studies. What others? We have over 1000 dams in California. Most of the remaining sites are too remote to make it worth it.

"I come from the point of view that we have plenty (abundance) and all that is required of us is that we manage what we have with intelligence and wisdom."

You point of view does not fit with the reality of the situation. We do not have enough to go around. Which was my point from the beginning.

My question then revolved around what to do. The current legal requirement (fed and state) is that water should be allocated to "best use." Under those circumstances, Westlands gets no water. Those farmers/speculators knew the rules going in. Now you want to change them. If my memory serves me, you complain about the government changing the rules in other situations. Why is it okay here?

I know you do this so you can beat up environmentalists, (a favorite game) and for the most part I let you have you fun. In this case, however, you are flat out wrong. Water shortages in California now have business owner fighting business owner. The main reason farmers can't get the government to build more water storage in California is that some other business group (fisherman, recreational operators, resort owners) are already using that water.

The real fear, however, comes from something Jack said, that we should just let the market decide who gets the water. Water is a basic human necessity that has no substitute. Once water is privatized, people without funds will go thirsty, and where is the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in that.

Mark

Tina,

I needed a separate post for this. You wrote:

"Here's an observation. A lot of people who actively support or are involved in environmental projects and organizations are academics and researchers. They depend on money "given" to do what they do...they depend on grants or salaries paid from taxes or donations. They are also focused on this single issue and they have very little, if any, understanding of what it takes to produce wealth or what it is to be responsible for the livlihoods of employees. To them life is a science project. It amazes me that they can get deeply involved in the survival of a small fish, the smelt, with all the passion and compassion anyone could possibly muster but they are heartless and sometimes cruel when it comes to survival for fellow human beings who have obligations to meet and people depending on them. They are unmoveable and inflexable and often see things only in extremes makingf negotiations impossible."

Here is my question for you: Why are business men (in the pursuit of profit) always so noble, but scholars (in the pursuit of knowledge) always so petty?

I mean, you get so upset when people claim businessmen cut corners to make a buck, but you repeatedly smear scholars by saying they make up facts to make a salary? You say these scholars know nothing of business, but how much do you know about scholarship? How many scholars do you personally know? Heartless? Come on. Really?

Mark

Mark: “Why are business men (in the pursuit of profit) always so noble, but scholars (in the pursuit of knowledge) always so petty?”

The answer is in the question, although the question implies something I would not say.

Other than feeding, housing and sustaining families, profit is what allows business to continue. It's what creates job opportunity. It's what ensures a continuing flow of revenue to government. It's what creates an opportunity to supplement retirement nest eggs and college nest eggs. It funds R&D ensuring that new ideas come forward. It makes the service industry possible. It funds higher education, and it supports the arts, museums, & foundations. “Profit” makes things possible. It is not the dirty word that so many in our society have come to believe it is.

The pursuit of knowledge is greatly enhanced by "profits"...wealth isn't something that stays in a pocket. Wealth is invested and used. I don't know if that makes it "noble" but it is necessary and practical. It is not smart to put profit last if you are in business; businesses experience "drought" conditions too. Profits and wise business decisions keep "dust bowls" away and the front doors open.

There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of knowledge and I don't believe it is a petty pursuit. In fact I appreciate the contribution of those who pursue knowledge. Knowledge is valuable...but it doesn't pay the bills andbelieve it has been a huge mistake to rely on those with limited or narrow experience alone when making political and social policy that will effect all of us for generations to come.

Many people in power, influenced by extreme environmentalists, refuse to consider the opinions of scientists who dispute global warming claims. Very big decisions are being made based on unproven theories and projected disasters. If we are going to make decisions about water that will affect Californians for decades into the future we should be making them based on sound information. If we do not we will not be creating a sustainable future.

The words "a sustainable future" were used early in the environmental movement. I first became disenchanted when I discovered that what I thought were conservationists with compassion for human beings were in fact zealots with a superficial interest in human welfare. Their interest was expressed in terms of "saving the planet for our children" but humans came to represent a danger within the context. Some humans were deemed evil and as such were required to make extra sacrifices and to limit, desist, change, modify and PAY for their sins. Quite a bit of it was based on fears of what might happen or on accidents. In some cases the parameters for compliance were set by a select few who were being advised by single-minded researchers making outrageous assumptions. Open hostility was advanced toward certain industries; industries that had contributed, much more than detracted, from our overall sustainability and progress through the years. That approach alone was enough to turn me off. The Exxon Valdez is one example.

Hysterical hype has influenced legislation and legal issues in ways I believe have added to the problems we are now experiencing and have done a great deal of harm to the process of finding solutions and moving ahead.

"How many scholars do you personally know? Heartless? Come on. Really?"

I have known several, not many. However mine was not a criticism of all scholars or scholarship. My complaint is about those who insist the sky is falling even after being presented with equally relevant evidence that the sky is indeed not falling. Their propensity to remain singularly focused and unable to consider things outside that focus is what draws my disdain. That way of thinking is not indicative of scholarship or sound science, it is indicative of fanatical thinking.

Heartless? Yes. Eliminating the logging industry was heartless; the methods cruel.

I usually try to differentiate between fanatics and people who are what I would call conservationists; people who have a genuine interest in preserving the beauty and abundance of our planet. Generally speaking, I don't believe it is conservationists that have the ear of politicians and judges. I believe it is the fanatics. That does not bode well for California or the world.

I was able to confirm your figure of 80% water use by farmers at a site called "Aquafornia", a blog at the Water Education Fundation. The article I read supplied more information about farming and the Delta and I highly recommend it:
http://aquafornia.com/californias-water-crisis

California is the nation’s leading agricultural producer and has been for the last 60 years, contributing more than half of the nation’s fruit, nut and vegetable production. California is also the nation’s leading exporter of agricultural goods. Agriculture provides 1.1 million jobs, and generates $27.6 billion dollars in sales, plus another $100 billion more in related economic activity. *** Many counties in California rely primarily on agriculture for their economic survival. Being a leader in agricultural production takes a lot of water, and so not surprisingly, the biggest user of water in California is the agricultural industry. ** Much of California’s vast water infrastructure was developed for agricultural purposes. With over 9.6 million acres under irrigation, agriculture uses 80% of California’s developed water supply. Decreasing agricultural water use is difficult, primarily because for most crops, applying less water will directly decrease crop yield. And, according to DWR, while there may be some farms with inefficient irrigation practices, most farms are already using water efficiently. *** The Delta is also home to a multitude of fish, wildlife and migratory waterfowl. It is the largest estuary on the west coast, and an important stop on the Pacific Flyway. However, water project operations have impacted native fish populations, and the Delta smelt, once the most populous fish in the estuary, is now on the brink of extinction. Other species are threatened as well: in 2008, salmon fishing was closed as salmon populations plunged; while researchers cite a number of reasons including lack of food in the oceans, declining conditions in the Delta are also thought to have played a role. *** In August of 2007, Judge Wanger, a federal court judge, ruled both the State Water Project and Central Valley Project were operating in violation of the Endangered Species Act, and ordered reductions in the amount of water exported from the Delta. He ruled again in August 2008 that project operations were jeopardizing the salmon. He did not order any further adjustments at the time, and the effect of this ruling has yet to be determined.

Fruits, nuts and vegetables aren't the cause of our weight problems, Mark. Providing half of the nation’s supply of these food groups is not a small thing. The revenue and jobs
generated from producing it is also not a small thing for California

I can't help wondering if the energy and money used in the courts and in influencing legislation had been spent on finding solutions adequate to the needs of farming, fish and people wouldn't have resulted in better water storage and management, repaired levies, and better flood and fire control. But fanatics always take the adversarial approach. They are contentious and suspicious by nature. Those of us with some sanity had better get hold of the reins or we will make big mistakes that will not be easily reversed...in fact, perhaps Jack is right and we already have.

Mark I did see one reference to several dam proposals (several dams;several proposals) that have been blocked through the years. I will try to find the information again and will post it later if I do.

Tina,

Okay, for the sake of moving forward, it is all the environmentalists fault. We should have built 2000 dams instead of only 1000.

But we didn't. So, what do we do now? How do we allocate the limited amount we have now? Should we have the state sell our water on the open market to the highest bidder?

Mark

If we as humans do not have water, we as humans will NOT live!

Now you animal, tree, bug, and slug worshiping liberals may find the idea of dieing from dehydration a pleasant thought, I do not.

When you idiotic fools finally go too far,,,,,,,,,,,,

Who do you really think will be the ones on the wrong side of the barrel?

Not me and my kind, because we believe that humans are more deserving of life than that which you do.

Also, when I look around the world, it is the countries that you liberals are politically aligned with that have the worst record on environmental matters.

Tina, Jack, we're not going to kill the Delta so you can have cheap tomatos. Get over it.

As I understand it, the Westlands never should have been put into production, because the water supply was always tenuous. This was known when the land went into production by the farmers who put it into production ... so what the bleep are they grousing about now!

Face it, people. We have just about maxed out this planet's capacity to sustain human life. Untrammeled growth stops, right here, right now. Stasis, equilibrium, for everything born, something dies ... we are going to learn to do this.

A few weeks ago I blundered onto a piece of "Trust for Public Land" east of the Sacramento Deep Water Channel and west of Shag Slough ... a big piece of re-flooded former ag land. I expect it was donated because it is too expensive to keep it drained. On Google Earth you can still see the field bounderies, but when you look across it, it's all tall grasses and waterways, just like in primeval days. And there is fish, sturgeon and something else, if you're an adult you can only eat it once a month, the sign says, and if you are pregnant or a child you cannot eat it at all.

It is damned impressive how degraded our environment has become, and hardly anybody minds at all.

Larry,

You need to look a little further into this. Humans cannot survive on a planet that will not also support fishies, and birdies and all manner of creepy buggies. You may very well be at the top of the food chain (not to mention created in God's image), but if those lower rungs are destroyed ... Dude ... you is toast.

Thank you Jack for responding to Mark's question. I had written another reply, a long one that took considerable time, and it was lost at submission due to this lovely software's posting glitch...sigh!

Three proposals for new dams include Temperance Flat Reservoir on the San Joaquin River, Sites Reservoir near the Sacramento River and expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa County.

In addition to dams there are other ideas for increasing water supplies. They include conservation, storage of water in natural underground aquifers, pipelines to carry water from the mountains, desalination plants to make drinking water from the ocean, and small dams to serve local areas. I didn't search all of them but know the governators proposals for dam building were squelched by democrats last year.

Libby: "Tina, Jack, we're not going to kill the Delta so you can have cheap tomatos. Get over it."

Mark this is the attitude of the environmentalists I rail against. They have closed minds and are certain that I would be in favor of killing the Delta...nothing could be further from the truth. Adequate storage and management would ensure that the Delta has plenty of water too! I look for solutions that will solve problems and support life, including fishes and tiny little organisms.

There are those in the movement with an attitude and agenda that include some pretty dark thoughts, like eliminating people in various ways...abortion, assisted suicide, limits on care for the elderly, and limiting family size as they have in China. There are people in the movement that wish to tear down all dams and let the streams run free. Libby would have food shortages and that would probably lead not only to high prices but also to greater starvation in some areas of the world.

It's impossible to negotiate, reason, or cooperate with people like this because they only care about having their way. A lot of people like this have driven the legislative and legal aspects of these issues and that must stop.

It would be very helpful if reasonable people who enjoy and appreciate our beautiful planet and all of the creatures that live here could stop defending these fanatics and begin to work with us toward solutions that work for all of us.

I read a story about a woman who owns a ranch where the Sipes dam would be constructed. She hates to see the land her family has owned for a couple of generations under water but she's in favor of the project because she understands the need for water is so great. Hers is an attitude of cooperation and for her personal sacrifice. she is being reasonable.

Animals and people adapt...surely we can come up with compromises and plans that will serve both the Delta and our farmers and fishermen.

Libby: "You need to look a little further into this. Humans cannot survive on a planet that will not also support fishies, and birdies and all manner of creepy buggies."

I'm quite certain that Larry is well aware of the food chain...when push comes to shove the question will become, are you aware of something called survival of the fittest?

In the last forty years or so people have complied and put up with a lot of change and costs and court cases and some of it has been over the top and rediculous...all in the name of environmentalism. You can't keep bashing away at people, pushing and shoving them into little spaces without having them begin to punch back.

"I'm quite certain that Larry is well aware of the food chain...when push comes to shove the question will become, are you aware of something called survival of the fittest?"

First, the "fittness" of humanity is highly debatable (unless, of course, you have been created in God's image).

Second, you are being very obtuse ... there will be no survival of humanity, fit or not, without a diverse supporting cast of fishies, birdies, buggies, etc.

You are not grasping the concept.

Tina,

Sites will keep water out of the Delta, and is opposed by environmentalists.

Temperate Flat is not economically feasible. The Bureau of Reclamation study for Temperance Flat found a benefit/cost ratio of between 1.01 and 1.06.

Los Vaqueros Reservoir expansion was opposed by the surrounding communities who saw it as a water exporting scheme.

Libby and you have your own thing going and I try not to make broader characterizations based on the two of you. : )

Mark

Mark I don't blame you a bit for avoiding comments on my exchanges with Libby...it only confirms my opinion that you are a smart fella.

"Not economically feasable" can mean a lot of things but I will take your word for it. I question government evaluations in general because so many agencies are either directly tied in with your side of the issue or have been heavily influenced by it. I have no specific reason to believe that about the Bureau of Reclamation but...you can't blame me for being a bit skeptical.

Same goes for the determination that Sipes will keep water out of the Delta. Dams are not designed to block the flow of water completely and as far as I know the water flow would not have to be restricted to the point of harming the Delta if we had sufficient storage. Water flow is diminished from run off and in streams and rivers in drought years under natural conditions which would mean less water in the Delta even if there were no dams. I just can't see how they pose a real problem except that people don't like them...just like they didn't like paper bags at the grocery store (and clear cutting even though trees were replaced). Now we have too many plastic bags in landfills and loggers are out of a job).

You are usually very reasonable...so I'll turn the question around...how do you propose keeping the farmers in business now that it has been shown that farmers are already doing all they can to use water efficiently? It seems like the only response the greens have is..."too bad farmers."

Tina,

I would start by enforcing the original Reclamation Laws, or something close to them. Water from the Central Valley Project was suppose to irrigate farms of 160 acres or less. Those are the farmers I think we need to support, not the farmers who travel around their 50,000 acre "farm" by helicopter.

Small farmers provide local food and feed, create local jobs like all small businessmen, and support their local schools because they have kids in them. They are the best use of our remaining supply.

Much like you chide liberals for supporting programs based on ideology, I think you support "farmers" to broadly in this case.

At minimum, I support the Westlands getting zero water allotments from the federal water project, which was the topic of your original posting.

Mark

Jack,

I agree and that is why I said "or something close."

The Central Valley Project was built at public expense, and should benefit the public at large. Water should be allocated to the best public use, and again, that is not the Westlands. While not 160 acres, farms are smaller on the east side of the valley.

Mark

"I would start by enforcing the original Reclamation Laws, or something close to them."

Does that include rescinding any judgements from the courts that may have infringed on those original rights?

Tina,

I am not sure what you mean, but that won't keep me from saying no. : )

Can you explain?

Mark

Mark I was able to find a couple of things that illustrate my point fairly well. Please know that I don’t think the causes behind some of these suits (and activism) are not worthy. My complaint is the unreasonable anti-business, anti-people posture that is often behind the activity and goals.

Groups like the Sierra Club bring lawsuits, or defend EPA rules in court, in order to incrementally get their interests and goals met without regard to the harm they inflict on others! I have highlighted some language that demonstrates the intent. I don’t have a problem with “restoring the San Joaquin River,” for instance, but I do have a problem with putting farmers out of business to do so. I also have a problem with purposely disrupting efforts aimed at solving the problems and meet the long term challenge of bringing clean water to all.

The Klamath settlement demonstrates how environmentalist push and push, using the courts and activism, and at times unsound science as propaganda, to gain concession after concession, giving up nothing themselves and offering nothing to address the needs of the farmers.

http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/lawsuits/0225.asp
July 29, 2005

Sierra Club and its allies have won a second major victory in the ongoing campaign to restore the San Joaquin River. Federal Judge Lawrence Karlton found in late July that water diversion contracts at Friant Dam jeopardized the existence of sensitive wildlife, including endangered salmon. Judge Karlton dismissed the government’s faulty reasoning, concluding that it had not truthfully considered the environmental impacts of completely draining the river. The contracts in question were issued in 2001, and allow 60 miles of the San Joaquin—California’s second longest river—to remain completely dry. Last year the judge found that the Bureau of Reclamation had violated state and federal laws by allowing the river to dry up in the first place. The case now moves forward to consider options to bring back the river and its wildlife.

http://klamathbasincrisis.org/index.html

...mandatory agriculture downsizing, the dispute resolution group that will control how you sue each other, who will control your new water allocation ......There is still no drought plan. ** People at the Yreka meeting presented testimony objecting to dam removal. Most of those objecting are not allowed at the table. ** Lawsuit Aims to Protect Northern California Salmon Habitat, posted to KBC 3/20/09. Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen, North Coast Environmental Center, Klamath Riverkeeper are among Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement stakeholders suing the Calif. Water Quality Control Board to regulate water quality in the Klamath Basin. The historically warm, mineral laden water must become clean. February 2009 lawsuit.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/369/NAS_debunks_Klamath_water_shutoff.html

The federal shutoff of irrigation water last year to farmers around Upper Klamath Lake on the Oregon-California border not only was unnecessary to preserve allegedly endangered suckerfish and salmon, but likely harmed the fish, according to a report submitted on January 31 by the National Academy of Sciences submitted to the federal government. ** The federal Bureau of Reclamation on February 27 announced plans to release irrigation water from Upper Klamath Lake to area farmers in time for the 2002 growing season. ** The 26-page NAS report concluded there was “no substantial scientific foundation” for claims that Upper Klamath Lake water levels need to be kept high to dilute the runoff of agricultural and other sediments into the lake. To the contrary, the report concluded the shutoff of water to local farmers likely harmed allegedly endangered fish by artificially raising water temperatures, especially in and around cold springs to which fish retreat to avoid the summer heat. The NAS report noted the best-ever year for Klamath fish populations occurred during a low-water year. ** Legal battles intensify: The Bureau of Reclamation’s February 27 decision to restore water to area farmers capped a month of frenzied activity regarding the Upper Klamath Lake region. Immediately after the NAS submitted its findings regarding the water shutoff, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a federal lawsuit to remove Endangered Species Act protection for the Klamath Basin coho salmon. ** The group had recently filed a similar lawsuit regarding coastal coho salmon, which met with mixed results. Pacific argued, and a federal district court agreed, that coastal coho salmon were not endangered in light of millions of hatchery-born salmon released into the wild. However, a federal appeals court reversed the decision, banning hatchery-born fish from the coastal coho salmon count. ** While the Pacific Legal Foundation challenged the appropriateness of listing Klamath coho salmon as endangered, environmental activist groups prepared their own legal strategy regarding the salmon. On the day Reclamation announced its plans to release irrigation water, 13 fishing and environmental activist groups filed a petition to intervene in the Pacific Legal Foundation’s suit.could not be trusted to mount a vigorous and effective defense of the Klamath salmon listing. “We cannot allow wild salmon and the protections they need to be used as pawns in a broader political game, in the Klamath, the courts, or anywhere,” said Jeff Curtis of Trouts Unlimited. ** “A handful of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service bureaucrats withheld desperately needed water from farmers in the Klamath Basin last summer,” said Rep. Jim Hansen (R-Utah). “Now we find out that decision was based on sloppy science and apparent guesswork. I am appalled. They made decisions that devastated the economy of an entire region--and they literally backed that decision up with armed federal agents.” ** “The latest travesty in the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act is one more nail in the coffin of that broken law. The ESA has become a wrecking ball in this country, devastating dreams, careers, personal finances, and regional economies.” ** “Had we not gotten an outside review of the science and the decisions leading to the water shutoff, the federal government would have continued down the wrong road,” observed Rep. Greg Walden (R-Oregon). “Now we find out that higher lake levels don’t help suckers and higher stream flows may actually kill coho salmon.”

The settlement regarding the Klamath Basin water crisis was a result of legal/government action(s) induced by environmental activist groups. The settlement (who has the money to fight in court forever?) benefited pretty much everyone involved except the farmers that sacrificed a lot...and the language of the agreement leaves the door open for more restrictions to farmers with nothing given up or compromised by environmentalists. The opinion of the National academy of Science came too late for farmers that lost their livelihood and land in the mess.

http://www.modbee.com/opinion/story/665419.html

In the usual battles over water, we're treated to titanic clashes between powerful interests. Farmers and their wealthy allies in the business world square off against well-heeled environmentalists and their political allies in Sacramento and Washington. ** Legal battles and a court order have shut down the supplies for West Side farms this year, driving many farmers to fallow their fields. That puts thousands of farmworkers out of a job. Unemployment in Mendota, where the march starts today, is officially at 40 percent, and is likely higher. That exceeds the worst of the Great Depression. ** Legal protections for threatened species of fish in the delta led to the court's ruling shutting off the pumps and the water flow.

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/living_green/national_green/green_ap_sacramento_cal_water_crisis_a_national_priority_20090812_2758220

Water is a precious resource in California. In recent years, legal battles over dwindling supplies have interrupted and reduced irrigation flows to the San Joaquin Valley, which supplies much of the nation's produce, forcing farmers to fallow hundreds of thousands of acres and idle farmworkers. ** Low rainfall has meant there is less water in the delta to sustain native salmon, posing a major threat to the fishing industry.

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051008/NEWS01/510080345/1001

CALFED, the 5-year-old program that was designed to solve the state's water battles, should be almost entirely frozen and restudied because its founding environmental documents didn't adequately study whether less water should be sucked from the Delta and sent south, according to a state appeals court decision released late Friday. ** The 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that those water export studies should have been done before state and federal authorities implemented CALFED, a joint effort authorized in 2000 to stop the long-running legal battles over how to use the state's limited water supply. ** "We're very happy. We're going to celebrate," said Dante Nomellini, attorney for the Central Delta Water Agency, which in 2000 sued over the CALFED program. ** Some water groups and environmentalists said the court decision may force CALFED to go back to its original environmental reports and redo them. And any new documents would likely have to consider changes in Delta ecology since 2000, including the recent Delta fish declines that have yet to be fully explained. ** CALFED includes a number of projects -- from restoring Delta habitat to increasing the velocity of giant export pumps near Tracy -- designed to appease both environmentalists and water users in Southern California and the southern Central Valley.

The law, rather than the legislative process, is used quite often by this organization and others to advance their agenda. They recently bragged about stopping the 100th coal plant proposal. Stopping ... not demanding that they be clean energy plants, not proposing that certain levels are met, but stopping. Very soon we will experience not only a water problems but energy problems as well because the agenda, based on an unproven theory, projected calamity, and fear, is more important than people having adequate water and warm houses and allowing for gradual change and innovation toward cleaner sources of energy and adequate management of water.

I admit it...it bothers me. I’ve said all along that the politicization of the environmental cause has changed so that concern for the environment has become a battle of control rather than one of working together to finds solutions. Now it has become a global battle to transfer wealth. The inconsistencies, the unreasonable attitudes, and the relentless attacks against business are just vicious and also very troubling. I wonder how many of the activists have heavy personal investments in green technology as Al Gore has? Are they doing this in part for their own personal gain? Controversy brings interest and donations. Have they become so jaded and perverted, or are they so Godless, that they care not about the unintended consequences of their actions in their lust for power and control? All of these thoughts and the political, legal, and activist efforts to put competitors or businesses they have decided are wrong or bad out of business make me highly suspicious.

I have to move on now. Have at me if you wish but I will wait for another day to continue. Take care.

"I wonder how many of the activists have heavy personal investments in green technology as Al Gore has?"

May I direct your attention to this years Most Corrupt Congressperson's compiled by CREW and the entry for Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) which lists, among other things:

"In 2007, Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc. (ESRI), a former client of Rep. Lewis’ deputy staff director Jeffrey Shockey, was awarded a federal contract worth over $55 million. In 2008, ESRI received contracts worth over $4 million dollars and the company’s founders, Mr. and Mrs. Dangermond donated $7,200 to Rep. Lewis’ campaign in 2008. In 2009, Rep. Lewis requested $12 million in earmarks for ESRI."

You see, Tina is all in favor of wealth transfer in this direction, any environmental tinge notwithstanding.

Follow the money...

How much money does Diane Finstein, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and their ilk stand to make if the lands are converted to solar and wind farms? The smelt is just a smoke screen to the real reason the feds have cut off the water.

Consider this... The power structure (democrats) have a three pronged approach to this... One, they want clean energy. Two, they want more control of the food supply. Three, they do not have a vested interest in the farmers and the people who live and work in the central valley (dominated by conservative republicans)

Not only will they make a ton of money off of the clean energy movement but they will create a shortage in food supply thus causing hysteria in the nation all while stiffing the conservative republicans of the central valley.

What better way to take further control of the people than to create another shortage thus hysteria? Remember the Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton mantra ... "Never let a crisis go to waste." The democrats are once again creating a crisis to gain more control over us. But this time, it will be a food crisis which will hit at the heart of our country.