WATER!!!

[FallingSparrow]

Once again the Obama's presidency did it again, another crappy act.

Gaians, what would you choose?

A. Turn off the water so that a two inch fish can survive and thrive once more and not go extinct.

Or...

B. Turn the water back on so that hundreds of farmers in California can get their jobs back.


All this because of some fish that can't even fit in the palm of your hand!!! stressed Obama has now created another dust bowl. CONGRATS Obama... All this talk of creating more jobs for the American people, you turn your cheek and take away jobs from the people you makes the food that goes on our tables. Farmers are left out of a job and searching for food in food lines. You realize that if this water does not get turned on, the food at stores will be more expensive. You want to know why? Because it will come from other countries!!!!! Aren't we already in debt to China? Why deepen it? Are you people seeing this on the News? Hundreds of families are left helpless. The land out in California look just like the dust bowl!!! What are our opinions?

Honestly it's a no brainer for me. Turn the damn water back on!!!

For those who don't know what the Dust Bowl was:



 

[FallingSparrow]

FYI: Here is the picture of the dear little fishy they are trying to save.

 

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Which would you rather have a whole ecosystem destroyed because of the affect of humans unnaturally taking away other supplies that could potentially cause starvation, or turning off water, risking an over exaggerated drought, and saving a species of animals that humans allowed to be destroyed through unsafe methods of getting water.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

Which would you rather have a whole ecosystem destroyed because of the affect of humans unnaturally taking away other supplies that could potentially cause starvation, or turning off water, risking an over exaggerated drought,

The over-exaggeration cuts both ways Mouse. The impacts of turning the water back on are NOT going to be be a whole ecosystem destroyed. Furthermore this is having a disproportionate impact on the local economy and the damage is far outweighing any benefit that could be derived from preserving this fish. Sorry, people first, fish second.

EDIT:
But if it makes you feel any better, even Dianne Feinstein, no champion of environmental degradation, is saying this thing needs to get looked at again:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574384731898375624.html?mod=googlenews_wsj  

[FallingSparrow]

Thank you Lord, sorry I wasn't here...

Either way there is going to be some damage, but come on now.... Which one has the greater impact? If you, Rainbowfied, want to pay for your fruits and vegies at a higer price be my guest. If you want to see more homeless and more lines at the food lines and job places go right on ahead. There is a ripple effect in anything you do, there is no escaping that. And that is something Obama needs to realize and learn! Pluse the Dempcrates needs to stop listening to you far left people!  

[Lord Bitememan]

Another good article summing up the lunacy here:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/11/emptying-reservoirs-in-the-mid/

And a piece that sums up well what policy objectives that impact the agriculture industry can do to global populations:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/153507-The-Great-Biofuel-Famine  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

My over exaggeration was to bring forth a point. I don't think shutting off a valve is going to cause the next dust bowl... neither do I think one species of fish is going to collapse the global ecosystem  

[Lord Bitememan]

Actually, turning off the water pumps HAS already had a substantial impact on the local economy and is also having a significant impact on regional output. They are estimating that continued water deprivation could cost the state of California as much as $3 billion! Moreover, as supplies of produce drop, US markets will turn to foreign producers for food. That means we will buy up those stocks, reducing the supply of produce for the international market and driving up prices for already poor consumers in the underdeveloped world. The US is an integral part of the global food market as one of the largest growers on Earth, and the San Joquin is an integral part of our agricultural output.  

[Latopazora]

Also considering, California cannot afford something like this. We're already bankrupt and then to turn off water to farmers, causing unemployment to rise only makes it worse. Not only are the cities suffering from high unemployment, the farmers will eventually migrate to the cities to find work, which will cause more problems. Yes, we should protect the Earth's ecosystem, how far is too far? When does it start getting to the point where it starts hurting humanity, and will probably end up hurting the environment itself.
If the species is on the brink of extinction, you have to think: is it because of humans or evolution? The smelt may just be on the brink of natural extinction. And to hurt the population to save a dying species, will cause more damage.  

[Pumona]

Latopazora

Also considering, California cannot afford something like this. We're already bankrupt and then to turn off water to farmers, causing unemployment to rise only makes it worse. Not only are the cities suffering from high unemployment, the farmers will eventually migrate to the cities to find work, which will cause more problems. Yes, we should protect the Earth's ecosystem, how far is too far? When does it start getting to the point where it starts hurting humanity, and will probably end up hurting the environment itself.
If the species is on the brink of extinction, you have to think: is it because of humans or evolution? The smelt may just be on the brink of natural extinction. And to hurt the population to save a dying species, will cause more damage.

You are right California can not afford this at all. Farmers are very important for the economy and there are enough people without jobs.  

[Drarksupersaiyan]

The water isn't the only factor that is causing the fish to die off. There are invasive bass living there with them that love to gobble them down.  

[Skibblez]

yeah, i wish that obama could be in one of those farmers shoes, knowing that his source of income had been cut off for the sake of some miniscule fish that's being eatin up by the bass anyway. wow isn't it amazing how he claims he's all for the working class, and then he turns around and screws us over further. is it just me? or is obama intentionally trying to destroy america?  

[synonymous logic]

I'm in total agreement with Lord and Latopazora, these fish are not worth saving, but either way there will be a dominio affect. If we turn the water back on and completely distroy the fish, then the bass will grow hungry, they too will die, causing fishermen to lose jobs aswell, thats why it's taking so damn long for them to come up with a solution. I say, obama should try to move the fish, or rebreed them, in another location, that way we can turn the water back on for the farmers and create new jobs, while at the same time protecting the jobs of the fishermen. I'm very upset about the massive loss of jobs in the Agricultural field, only about 2% of america's population, work in agriculture and now that percentage is going down due to some lame fish that we could easily move.