Yeah, they’re so angry they may vote for different democrats.
Next up: Sacred unicorns (because, after all, unicorns don't fart).
Why do we grow livestock feed in a desert using massive government subsidies for a handful of multimillionaires?
Is WSJ really pretending this is something new?
Right there is the problem...Corrupt government again.
Smuck the felt. Let farmers grow food. Meanwhile, Newscum does nothing, as usual.
A Fish over Humans is insanity
I don’t blame the fish. Why would tens of millions of people (include millions of illegal immigrants) live in an arid environment and then wonder why there isn’t enough water? Sort of like sub-Saharan Africa.
If it were not the endangered fish it would be something else. There is this marxist urge to cause genocide by famine.
California is well along in its controlled flight into terrain.
Fish are a talking point to justify crushing agriculture.
Billionaire and the Chinese are buying up the best farmland. Why?
The Leftist are trying to make food so expensive that no one other than the wealthy can afford to eat.
We will eat the bugs, own nothing and be happy.
Or else.
Many years ago I spent some time in the San Joaquin Valley. Farmers there told me the top soil is very deep and very rich. If you water it, plants grow like crazy. If you don’t water it, it reverts to the semi desert it was. To give up this potential bounty to protect a bait fish is crazy. But that’s what’s being done and has been done for years.
Their whole save the planet crap is just crap , what good is the planet without humans
This is what California voted for
My plan. Use the 40% water to raise crops to feed your family, workers and fellow farmers. Next sell the extra food at a loss to an out of state co-op you and other farmers set up. California gets no tax revenue since in California you lost money. In the other state the co-op made money. Let the state and population in California starve because after all we are saving the fish!
How did the smelt ever survive a dry spell before people started “managing” the water?
This is all about the California real estate racket (particularly benefitting Catellus Development, Kaufmann and Broad, etc.) so that they can build insta-cities along our supposedly "high speed rail" system, to be completed at outrageous cost "someday." The smelt is likely imported from Kamchatka but for a single "find" by a rather malleable ichtheo-archaeologist and is being snarfed by striped bass, also exotic but very popular among fishermen. As to the steelies, they're being hammered by Russian, Japanese, and Korean commercial fishing. You can read about a related case here.
Bad in the bad old days of the 1970’s there was a big drought in Santa Cruz so bad we took baths in the ocean. The government started taking our well water and billing us for what once was free.
I remember driving south to Orange county and there was no drought down in the desert scrub land. People were still washing cars, watering lawns, name it.
Until California, who basically owns or stole the water does this, there will be bad droughts and poor water management. Who profits?
"California Is Finally Awash in Water, but Its Farmers Can’t Get It. A push to save endangered fish has cut supplies to America’s produce epicenter, stirring resentment"
First, the states have never expressly constitutionally given the unconstitutionally big federal government the specific power to define or police endangered biological species.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
But it remains that career California lawmakers are probably happy that non-popularly elected federal bureaucrats running constitutionally undefined federal regulatory agencies are doing their unpopular dirty work for them.
Also, the following videos about delta smelt make some interesting points, the first video clip showing Trump express his concerns about California water politics v. smelt.
Donald Trump: Delta Smelt Crisis: The Hidden Truth Behind California's Water Shortage (non-FR)
The second video notes that the smelt hasn't been seen in the delta for the last six years, the third video mentioning that predators and food competitors are helping to reduce the number of smelts.
Supreme Court probably needs to reign in the Endangered Species Act. So many species that are protected (fish, hawks, eagles, wolves, rattlesnakes) are not even actually endangered so they made up a new category “at risk”, and many are a threat to people, livestock and pets. Should not be protected at all. Actually, I think no species should be protected— if they failed to make it without help there is a good reason for it, we should respect it and move on. Wolves being a great example.