Government-imposed drought: CA farmers prevail over environmentalists ... for now

[O]pposed to water deliveries are members of Congress such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. George Miller (D-CA). They will continue to do everything in their power to stop water from flowing to the San Joaquin Valley.

Between a human and an animal (or fish or tree), an environmentalist picks the animal (or fish or tree) just about every time. In California, farmers have been battling over water rights for years because environmentalists wants to save a three-inch fish.

Humans? Fish?

A judge has finally sided with humans on this one. Finally.

"A Battle Won" by Rebekah Rast from Get Liberty Blog:

After three years of war between fish and man, the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley have finally won a battle.

It has taken three years of fallow fields, seasonally over-priced produce and farmers and their families standing in food lines for the realization to come that humans and their livelihood are more important than a 3-inch endangered bait fish, the Delta smelt. That's three years too long, but farmers and those needing water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are still elated.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger issued a 126-page decision involving the threatened Delta smelt stating water officials must consider humans along with the fish in limiting use of the Delta for irrigation. This decision comes just days after a similar ruling on endangered salmon in the Delta. The judge was convinced by the arguments of water users that research by the federal government did not prove that increased pumping from the Delta greatly harmed the smelt.

"We are very pleased and very happy," says Sarah Woolf of California's Westlands Water District. "It has finally been recognized that what needs to be focused on is the whole environment and how everything is interrelated."

Judge Wanger's ruling proves that the environmentalist movement has gone too far. Even though water deliveries to the Valley have been restricted for years, the population of fish in the Delta has continued to decline. Clearly, water deliveries are not solely to blame for fish populations and therefore farmers should not be punished any longer.

The rulings have given farmers of the San Joaquin Valley an extra month of water — until the end of June. There are no pumping restrictions in the summer and more hearings will determine when the pumps will flow and at what capacity for the fall season.

Just because pumping restrictions have been lifted, laws to protect the smelt and salmon are still in place. "If we start to see salmon or smelt in the pumps, we will reduce the water flow," Woolf says. "We are taking actions to protect the fish."

As a balance is sought after to protect the fish as well as provide farmers with the water they need, the fact that the judge ruled with the farmers sets a new precedent and gives hope to those affected by this government-imposed drought.

Ruling against the current Administration that has done very little to help the plight of these farmers, except when votes were needed to pass the healthcare legislation, and ruling against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations and the Endangered Species Act, this judge has taken a big step to addressing the needs of the farmers.

Though a battle has been won, the war is far from over. Those opposed to the judge's ruling are already planning their next legal moves, which may include the case going up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Also opposed to water deliveries are members of Congress such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. George Miller (D-CA). They will continue to do everything in their power to stop water from flowing to the San Joaquin Valley.

The San Francisco Chronicle quoted Miller as saying, "For 10 years they've violated the laws and the science in the name of greed. But we've beat them before and we'll beat them again." He is referring to farmers of the San Joaquin Valley.

Pelosi isn't any better. She could easily call on Congress to allow more water to flow to the farmlands of the San Joaquin Valley, but she has made it clear that fish are more important.

What may be the most damaging comes from the Obama Administration. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar originally gave farmers of the San Joaquin Valley only a 5 percent water allocation — a serious blow to the breadbasket of the world.

These are just a few of the opponents that will be faced as the Valley continues its fight for water, but in the meantime, farmers are celebrating their victory.

For those communities in the San Joaquin Valley facing unemployment levels of 40 percent, more water delivery means jobs and will allow these farmers to provide for their families once again.

"This is wonderful news for those farmers," says Bill Wilson, President of Americans for Limited Government (ALG). "The judge's decision will allow for more common-sense solutions to the problems facing the Delta."

Through his ruling, Judge Wanger has shifted the focus in the Delta from a fish to an entire biological system that depends on water. Finally a solution can be found that gives equal balance to fish and farmers.

Stay tuned....

Man-made drought in CA destroying farms to save "endangered" minnow

When it comes to protecting humans ... or protecting endangered animal species at the cost of humans ... which is more important? From the Wall Street Journal:

In 1931, a severe drought began that within a few years engulfed the Oklahoma panhandle and a third of the Great Plains in a "Dust Bowl." Tens of thousands of people fled the region—many traveling to California along Route 66, which John Steinbeck called "the mother road, the road of flight" in "The Grapes of Wrath."

A lot of the "Okies" settled in the San Joaquin Valley. In the decades that followed, state and federal officials built dams and other irrigation projects that helped turn the valley into some of the world's richest farmland.

But today the San Joaquin Valley is being transformed into a dust bowl. Hundreds of thousands of acres are fallow, while almond and plum trees are being left to die in the scorching sun. Tens of thousands of people have been tossed out of work—the town of Mendota alone has an unemployment rate of about 40%—and the lines for food donations stretch down streets. The reason? There isn't enough water to go around this year, and the Obama administration is drawing up new reasons to divert more of it from farms and people and into the San Francisco Bay.

Concrete Bob at United Conservatives was watching Sean Hannity last week in disbelief as thousands of residents gathered with Hannity as he broadcasted his Fox News show in the very fields that are dried up and dying. Unemployment is 40% ... livelihoods are ruined ... farmers are at the mercy of a government that has buckled to environmentalists.

Read the entire Wall Street Journal article. Radical environmentalists ... they choose animals over humans just about every time. How do they rationalize doing that while talking about nationalized health care out of the other side of their mouths ... professing concern for the poor, the homeless, the needy?

How about professing a little concern for hard-working people who were taking care of themselves? They are now left with nothing ... what better proof that the government wants dependent people on its rolls?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."--Edmund Burke

Anti-energy protesters ... did they walk to Richmond if they're so opposed to drilling & coal?

Anti-energy protesters met today in front of the Massey Energy Company headquarters in downtown Richmond and marched to Dominion Virginia Power to protest ... what?

Electricity? Summer air conditioning? Winter heating propane? Oil for farm vehicles? Gasoline for citizens' vehicles? Electricity for outdoor night lighting?

What exactly is it these people want ... besides the tired old "protecting the environment" line? I have heard that since the 1960s and energy is cleaner and more efficient now than it was then. So what are they complaining about now?

This is getting old. I am tired of hearing nothing but negative complaints from these protesters ... do they have lives like the rest of us? Do they work?

Reportedly gathering from up and down the Eastern Seaboard, how did those protesters get to Richmond if they were so opposed to oil and gas? Walk?

Ride a horse?

Drive a buggy? Oops -- nope, it needs to have its wheels lubricated with oil-based products. And fuel to mill the boards to build it.

Take the train? Oops -- nope, it needs fuel, too. Can't take the bus -- needs gas and oil. Surely they didn't drive cars ... oil, gas, and oil used in tires.

Did they shower afterwards? That required fuel to run the pump to move the water to the pipe to the shower. Did they stay in a motel? Again, fuel needed to air condition the room and provide lights and water and to pave the parking lot and keep the pool clean.

Did they stop in a restaurant to eat? That required fuel to air condition the place, run the appliances, and to truck in the food that was served to them.

Perhaps they want to grow food themselves? That requires oil and gas to run farm equipment unless they want to plow and hoe by hand. A large field would require many hands and much work ... no time left to walk to Richmond to protest the companies that provide energy ... fuel, gas, oil.

Did they wear clothes? Those are transported by 18-wheelers criss-crossing the country delivering goods to shopping centers, stores, and outlets.

Could some reporters please ask those questions of the anti-energy hypocrites next time they cover such an event?