It was not my intent to cast dispersions on your point of view and in fact I had read all of your prior comments. Here is a compilation of the comments that you had made that prompted my post:
I understand that it is not your responsibility to defend this project and you have made a good case for what you consider to be an important project. The question at hand is whether this project is an economic stimulus project.The exact number won't be known until this fall when the project is scheduled to begin
Another aspect to the project is it benefits steelhead trout, Chinook salmon and smelt which could offer recreational value also.
I consider it stimulus spending but questionable on economic growth potential. It's difficult to determine what potential it has until the project is completed.
I believe that could be accomplished at least in part through long term management of the ecosystem.
it could be the point where the ecosystem in question becomes uninhabitable, becoming nothing more than a leach field for the sewage systems that seems to be one of the major contributors to it's demise.
Since this mouse is protected by the Endangered Species Act, the government has a legal requirement to help it, and in the process a 1,990 acre ecosystem benefits as well. The ecosystem in question was originally 164,000 acres, but if something isn't done asap there won't even be anything to restore.
It is difficult for me to grasp the "shovel ready" aspect of this project based on your comments. Based on Perry Gayaldo's comments, it would appear this project is still in the planning phase.
But set all of that aside. Consider an annual salary of $150,000 for a man-year of work plus $75,000 for benefits, that is a total of $225,000. So $16Million represents 64 man-years of salary for workers on real "shovel ready" projects.
So that is the choice that has been made: Additional planning/feasability by hydrological engineers and fishery biologists or 64 man-years of salary for a "shovel-ready" infrastructure project.
Based on the needs of the economy and the intent of the Stimulus bill, I would favor the later over the former. You seem to disagree with my choice.
Finally, I would be interested in knowing who you think is accountable for a 164,000 acre ecosystem (for which someone had to be responsible) shrinking to 1,990 acre ecosystem with no properly allocated monies to sustain it? Will the persons/institutions responsible for this unfortunate state of affairs also be responsible for overseeing the $16Million grant?
Sorry if I offended you, I look forward to your response.