The Delta Smelt

[RabbitMage]

The delta smelt is a 2-3 inch fish that's endemic to the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary here in California.
<-all this right here. It is also an indicator species-one of the animals looked at to judge the overall health of it's environment. Other fish who share the delta smelt's environment and may rely on it as a food source include salmon and sturgeon.

It's also the center of a major debate in the state. Here's the issue.

Most of California's water are in the north and west of the state. A good part of California's agriculture is located in the drier central and southern potion of the state. This means we have to get water from

here

via a bunch of this

to places that look like this.



These guys who live also happen to be endangered and are now under federal protection. Part of this protection involves limiting pumping water from to in an effort to preserve the fish.

However, the lack of water is affecting farmers and leading to things like and .

While the pumping restrictions in place do affect farmers, they may only be a small part of the problem. Many of the farms suffering from a lack of water are in dry, arid, temperate zones that see less than 12 inches of rainfall annually. California is still affected by a drought that started in 2006.

So who do you side with? Is there a middle ground somewhere that will protect both fish and farmers?

[Zuul]

This conflict is a lot more complex than either side generally wants to portray it as, and while I'm for the protection of the delta smelt I do recognize the reasons behind why the water is needed for farming. Something more effective needs to be done than just saying the water is off-limits.

First of all, it seems absolutely moronic to grow crops that need a lot of water in an arid environment, particularly in a region that has a history of difficulties with water rights. So why are they doing it? Because in a warm, arid environment like that you can grow certain crops year round, a luxury not possible in America's bread basket. If we're not growing them, then we'll have to import them from Mexico, which is further away and is depriving our economy of an opportunity.

Second, if you don't want to be seen as some toothless redneck asshole, don't have an Endangered Species Fish Fry as a protest.

We do need farming in the region. However, the farming can be managed in ways that don't have to endanger the environment. Those fish only live in that one region. Once they're gone, that's it. There should be more care taken in what crops are grown and the water should be reduced and reused as much as possible, as well as alternative sources of water persued. Farming as its done in the US is ridiculously wasteful IME, but that doesn't mean it has to be.

[hatesfreedom]

I'm for the fishs, while we'd all like to save the already crumbling shell of a state that California is we none of us can fight the power and the fury of federal endangered species law. That and it's just the right thing to do, you'll just have to ask those farmers to leave the area.

[What Exit?]

Ah California farming policies and their water act. California is the worst case scenario of water use in the country. Extremely wasteful and insane and their big business Ag industry has actually hurt the smaller farms in other states. Thanks to the oddity of California, NY state has lost a lot of Dairy Farms that were honestly family businesses. Milk is being trucks across country in many cases which is well insane. They grow crop after crop in dry arid regions at a huge waste of water and then bitch it is LA's fault they are short on water. The farming practices in Southern California need to be overhauled and the Water Act and Board of 1914 is where to start. Maybe the tiny smelt will be the start of that change.

[OneCentStamp]

I don't especially care one way or the other about the endangered smelt - we're probably bulldozing a couple dozen species into extinction every year in Brazil alone - but I think our arrogance about reshaping the ecosystem is foolish and ultimately dangerous. The idea that we can, through engineering and technology, make places like Los Angeles or New Orleans or Haiti habitable for millions of humans is stupid, and that stupidity is only going to become more manifest as time goes on. We're going to lose.

[Orual]

First of all, it seems absolutely moronic to grow crops that need a lot of water in an arid environment, particularly in a region that has a history of difficulties with water rights.

This is what I think as well. I also tend to think it's a bad idea to mess with ecosystems to the extent that California agriculture has, and farming needs to change.

It will be high on my list of priorities after I capture every single California state and local politician, ship them off to the Floating Trash Island in the Pacific, and take over as God-King of the West Coast.

There is no possible way I could do a worse job.

[vison]

. . . . . .The idea that we can, through engineering and technology, make places like Los Angeles or New Orleans or Haiti habitable for millions of humans is stupid, and that stupidity is only going to become more manifest as time goes on. We're going to lose.

Word.

[CatInASuit]

First of all, it seems absolutely moronic to grow crops that need a lot of water in an arid environment, particularly in a region that has a history of difficulties with water rights.

Pretty much this. Then again, if there is money to be made, someone somewhere will do it.