- RT @matt_weiser: Don't pin your hopes on El Nino to bust the CA #drought this winter. http://bit.ly/F5uh6 #
- Calaveras River fishkill near Stockton reported: http://tinyurl.com/mnwvjx #
- RT @matt_weiser: CA officials say only 10% of #water cutbacks caused by #fish protections; Page 10 of this pdf; http://bit.ly/xXu4t #
- Heard of fish & game poachers, but plant poachers? Why not – plants don't move as fast as fish and deer… http://ow.ly/qmG3 #
- Canada's grizzly bears starving as salmon numbers decline? Maybe… http://ow.ly/qmKs #
- Has anyone noticed that clicking the mouse HARDER a second time rarely makes that failed link open any better? #
Powered by Twitter Tools
I’d say 25 percent of the cutback is due to “environmental” water reserved for fish. In addition, farms face the steepest cutbacks generally while urban users are protected, so they’re probably losing more water than circa 20 percent cut the chart shows, especially those with poor water rights.
Bruce Ross(Quote)
First, that chart is only the Delta exports – not total water exports. In terms of overall water delivery to the south, “fish” water becomes an even smaller amount (Lester Snow of the water project said water restrictions only accounted for 5% of the regions shortfall).
Regardless of how environmental water is quantified (10% of total or 25% of cutbacks), the whole “people vs fish” meme is largely specious – yet people persist in blaming all the region’s woes on the ESA (as evidenced by the visit of noted cartoon character Sean Hannity).
And of course those with junior water rights – like Westlands – take the brunt during a drought. How else is it supposed to happen?
We could pump the Delta dry – sacrificing it (and salmon, and steelhead, and all the other species) – and still not make up the shortfall.
Finally, urban users may be “protected” to some extent, but several districts have done a pretty good job of cutting back (some on the order of 20%). With agriculture using the bulk of the state’s water (I see numbers between 70%-80%), the drought shortfall won’t be made up on the backs of residential water anyway.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
Is there another way of shipping water south than through the Delta? I thought it was the only route (thus the perpetual push for the canal).
Look, to use an analogy a freelance writer can understand: If there’s a recession and jobs are scarce, your income might fall by a quarter. If some jerk of a publisher then stiffs you for a piece, it might be only 5 percent of your pre-recession income. When times are already tight, though, that 5 percent means all the more to you. I’d suggest the same phenomenon applies to water.
You won’t find me defending Sean Hannity, but the water diversions — or un-diversions, to be precise — for the smelt are making a difficult situation worse for the farmers. Driving Central Valley fisheries extinct would also a bad thing, but let’s not disingenuously pretend there are no costs to protecting the fish.
Bruce Ross(Quote)
There are costs to protecting the fish, and some farmers are having to decide in this drought which crops survive and which ones die. And that’s hard when you’ve invested years and cash into a crop like almonds and it takes about three years before they yield their first nut. However, to put it in perspective, we can always plant another orchard or field, but no one has been very successful in replanting a run of salmon. The tilled fields and crops will always be available for planting — even if there was some cash pain along the way — but it is harder to make that claim for fish and their habitat. The real question is, which one would ultimately cost more to replace after the drought is over?
Smarter and Better Looking Brother(Quote)