Farmers vs Fish

This little bait fish has caused the biggest waste of fresh water in all of history. Its not even a spectacular fish, its a fish people use to bait other fishes. The Delta Smelt

This one fish has stopped all of conservation efforts because the enviromental policies are now dumping fresh water into the ocean. This tiny fish has been placed above farmers, food and 1/2 of America's food supply.

Increased water flow to provide for the fish, while farmers, farms and people have been cut off from the supply.

1.4 trillion gallons of fresh water has been dumped into the ocean for this fish.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/14/us-usa-california-water-idUSBREA2C1MB20140314

http://www.wsj.com/articles/forget-the-missing-rainfall-california-wheres-the-delta-smelt-1430085510

I can't read the second article (stupid paywall), but in the first article it seems like the growers are asking to draw water away from wetlands to irrigate their crops, which isn't the same as the fish "stealing" the water from farms.

A fish like that is part of a food chain. You destroy the fish, and you destroy the food chain. You destroy the food chain, and we suffer.

Short team thinking in the past has put us in this predicament.

So, from my understanding, the argument goes that "dem liberals" are "pumping trillions of gallons of fresh water into the ocean" by...allowing a river to do what a river does and pump water into the ocean. That's some screwy semantics there. I don't think the question should be "is it okay for a river to do river stuff?" it should be whether sustaining the unsustainable agricultural practices that are drying up California is worth wringing out every last drop of fresh water the state has.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A fish like that is part of a food chain. You destroy the fish, and you destroy the food chain. You destroy the food chain, and we suffer.

Short team thinking in the past has put us in this predicament.

This is a bait fish that is not even native to these waters. How is that worth 50% of the food for America?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So, from my understanding, the argument goes that "dem liberals" are "pumping trillions of gallons of fresh water into the ocean" by...allowing a river to do what a river does and pump water into the ocean. That's some screwy semantics there. I don't think the question should be "is it okay for a river to do river stuff?" it should be whether sustaining the unsustainable agricultural practices that are drying up California is worth wringing out every last drop of fresh water the state has.

Of coarse its semantics to you because you are all talk. Again you show you have zero clue on real world problems and just post here to debate a topic which you don't have any stake in to merely play devils advocate and cast doubt on a serious problem.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Of coarse its semantics to you because you are all talk. Again you show you have zero clue on real world problems and just post here to debate a topic which you don't have any stake in to merely play devils advocate and cast doubt on a serious problem.

Rivers flow into the ocean, that's the natural course of things. Framing the blocking of the attempt to divert the water for agricultural purposes as "waste" presumes the validity of the farmers' argument that the water belongs to them for their use and not to the endangered wetlands. The other article you posted in the other thread is even sillier because the writer pretends like stopping the diversion of river water amounts to "liberals" "dumping fresh water" when all they're doing is preserving the natural order of the river and preventing reckless exploitation of a diminishing resource.

California doesn't have the water to sustain its current agricultural projects. The answer isn't to dry up what fresh water remains but to rethink what kinds of crops the state's farmers have been growing. I mean, do we really need pistachios? They're tasty as hell, but no one's going to starve for lack of them.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And I would argue you're oversimplifying the issue by ignoring how the opponents of the environmental initiative are trying to use dishonest rhetoric to reframe the conservationist effort as some kind of anti-agriculture initiative or waste of water.

Rivers flow into the ocean, that's the natural course of things. Framing the blocking of the attempt to divert the water for agricultural purposes as "waste" presumes the validity of the farmers' argument that the water belongs to them for their use and not to the endangered wetlands. The other article you posted in the other thread is even sillier because the writer pretends like stopping the diversion of river water amounts to "liberals" "dumping fresh water" when all they're doing is preserving the natural order of the river and preventing reckless exploitation of a diminishing resource.

California doesn't have the water to sustain its current agricultural projects. The answer isn't to dry up what fresh water remains but to rethink what kinds of crops the state's farmers have been growing. I mean, do we really need pistachios? They're tasty as hell, but no one's going to starve for lack of them.

Yes because Pistachios are the only thing grown in California. A ignorant answer from a ignorant person.

And I guess its a good idea to you and all these idiots spouting the same nonsense to save this stupid non native fish, now we have to to create more environmental damage and energy waste by creating desalination plants to take the salt water back out the ocean to convert it to fresh water, then just stop dumping the excess fresh water into the ocean. California does have the water if the environmentalists would get off there save the fish foundation.

I guess you didn't think of that one though. Tell me how de sal plants are preserving the natural of order things. I would love to see your reasoning behind this logic. I can see you really don't care, as usual you are here to pit yourself against any logical debate and cast doubt on anything reasonable.

Do you leave your faucet on at home? And then collect rain water to make up the difference? Thats how stupid your idea is.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Yes because Pistachios are the only thing grown in California. A ignorant answer from a ignorant person.

And I guess its a good idea to you and all these idiots spouting the same nonsense to save this stupid non native fish, now we have to to create more environmental damage and energy waste by creating desalination plants to take the salt water back out the ocean to convert it to fresh water, then just stop dumping the excess fresh water into the ocean. California does have the water if the environmentalists would get off there save the fish foundation.

I guess you didn't think of that one though. Tell me how de sal plants are preserving the natural of order things. I would love to see your reasoning behind this logic. I can see you really don't care, as usual you are here to pit yourself against any logical debate and cast doubt on anything reasonable.

Do you leave your faucet on at home? And then collect rain water to make up the difference? Thats how stupid your idea is.

If you'd actually paid attention to my post instead of just focusing in one on detail (rather fallaciously too), you'd see that what I'm advocating is that Californian farmers try to better use what water they have rather than extracting from more sources to sustain unsustainable crops including pistachios.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's called an example. Lol. You're just looking for excuses to get angry at me. Take it down a notch already.

If you'd actually paid attention to my post instead of just focusing in one on detail (rather fallaciously too), you'd see that what I'm advocating is that Californian farmers try to better use what water they have rather than extracting from more sources to sustain unsustainable crops including pistachios.

How on earth is this the farmers fault, you sound like Monsanto.

How about blaming the government and special interest groups.

What's up with the fish? It's not like that's the only food source for other aquatic creatures in the ocean.

I could care less about the fish.
All I care about is my fellowmen getting adequate water supply to carry them through the drought.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
What's up with the fish? It's not like that's the only food source for other aquatic creatures in the ocean.

I could care less about the fish.
All I care about is my fellowmen getting adequate water supply to carry them through the drought.

Its not even a fish we eat, nor is it native to the area. Somehow they ended up there and people think that its needs are >food for the rest of us.

At least fish are cool and can do things. Don't we waste a shitload of water on god damn almonds?

The farmers have their own share of the blame for lack of water: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26124989

Originally posted by Surtur
At least fish are cool and can do things. Don't we waste a shitload of water on god damn almonds?

Your confusing real fish people eat, with a tiny bait fish people kill to bait other fish.

I think it's time to say "screw China they need to get their own hay for a while".

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The farmers have their own share of the blame for lack of water: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26124989

Funny thing, the farmers feed you. But when you run out of food. I guess it will be their fault too.

You still cant explain your natural order of things, of dumping 1.7 trillion gallons of fresh water in the ocean to help these bait fish. Then taking the ocean water back out with a manufacturing process to make it drinkable. Then again, liberals have always had reverse thinking. So I can see why this makes sense to you.

Then again, those fish seem pretty important to you then 50% of the the food in America, and all you can say is "oh its the pistachio's, blame the farmers."

I'm sure there's plenty of land and water in India to grow hay for China.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm sure there's plenty of land and water in India to grow hay for China.

US needs exports remember? Trade deficits and all or did you forget about those too?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Funny thing, the farmers feed you. But when you run out of food. I guess it will be their fault too.

You still cant explain your natural order of things. of dumping 1.7 trillion gallons of fresh water in the ocean to help these bait fish.

Then again, those fish seem pretty important to you then 50% of the the food in America, and all you can say is "oh its the pistachio's, blame the farmers."

How are they feeding us by sending it to China?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
US needs exports remember? Trade deficits and all..

So why not find one not as water costly?