Palin decries water restrictions at Calif. college

[Hatuey]

Palin decries water restrictions at Calif. college - Yahoo! News

Sarah Palin returned to Central California's agricultural region Sunday and lambasted the federal government for limiting the amount of water the state's farmers can get for their crops.

The former Alaska governor told more than 1,400 people at West Hills College in Lemoore that endangered species regulations protecting the Delta smelt and limiting pumping are "destroying" the lives of those in the Central Valley.

"A faceless government is taking away their lifeline, water, all because of a 3-inch fish," Palin said. "Where I come from, a 3-inch fish, we call that bait. There is no need to destroy people's lives over bait."

Palin also spoke about high gas prices, dependence on foreign oil, the need for domestic drilling and limiting currency inflation.

This is why that simpleton should never be President. California's water restrictions were imposed after years of drought in the 2000s. The fact that water restrictions were placed on farmers was in part because taking up all the water would affect the state's struggling fishing industry(more specifically the industries that fish the already endangered salmon, steelhead and green sturgeon). In any case it would be a lose-lose situation for the federal government. Let farmers use as much water as they want and kill off a piece of California fishing industry. Or let the fishing industry die off and have thousands of fisherman out of work. The federal government chose to let both industries share the resource. In any case, Palin needed to talk about big bad evil government.

Economy of California including California Agriculture and Manufacturing from NETSTATE.COM

**** off and stay in Alaska.

 

[Midwest Lib]

Palin decries water restrictions at Calif. college - Yahoo! News



This is why that simpleton should never be President. California's water restrictions were imposed after years of drought in the 2000s. The fact that water restrictions were placed on farmers was in part because taking up all the water would affect the state's struggling fishing industry(more specifically the industries that fish the already endangered salmon, steelhead and green sturgeon). In any case it would be a lose-lose situation for the federal government. Let farmers use as much water as they want and kill off a piece of California fishing industry. Or let the fishing industry die off and have thousands of fisherman out of work. The federal government chose to let both industries share the resource. In any case, Palin needed to talk about big bad evil government.

Economy of California including California Agriculture and Manufacturing from NETSTATE.COM

**** off and stay in Alaska.

Palin is a bit late on this one.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-blogs/57018-senate-democrats-vote-unanimously-destroy-american-farmers-america-s-foodsupply.html

 

[Henrin]

If I remember correctly wasn't this a foreign fish? Why not just kill the thing and move on?

 

[Midwest Lib]

If I remember correctly wasn't this a foreign fish? Why not just kill the thing and move on?

The above posted thread covers the topic thoroughly. Killing off the fish would essentially kill off the first step in a pretty important food chain.

 

[Henrin]

The above posted thread covers the topic thoroughly. Killing off the fish would essentially kill off the first step in a pretty important food chain.

So it wasn't foreign?

I'm still not seeing why you would punish farmers for a food chain of fish and the fishing industry. It would seem to me that the fishing industry has problem of their own that farmers shouldn't care about.

 

[upsideguy]

Sarah Palin? Sounds a bit familiar. Is she still alive? According to my watch its now 16 minutes past the hour....

 

[Midwest Lib]

So it wasn't foreign?

I'm still not seeing why you would punish farmers for a food chain of fish and the fishing industry. It would seem to me that the fishing industry has problem of their own that farmers shouldn't care about.

By that logic couldn't one just as easily state the inverse? How would stating "It seems to me that the farming industry has problems of their own (in this case water shortage) that fishermen shouldn't care about." be any different?

 

[winston53660]

Sarah Palin? Sounds a bit familiar. Is she still alive? According to my watch its now 16 minutes past the hour....

Yeah she is still the same bimbo she use to be. And no where near Marilyn Monroe status.

 

[StillBallin75]

Yeah she is still the same bimbo she use to be. And no where near Marilyn Monroe status.

I've always wondered if we actually have any evidence that Marilyn Monroe was an idiot.

 

[Barbbtx]

Palin is a bit late on this one.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-blogs/57018-senate-democrats-vote-unanimously-destroy-american-farmers-america-s-foodsupply.html

Oh, you mean they finally turned the water back on for the farmers? If not, then she is not late, and it's still a problem.

 

[Henrin]

By that logic couldn't one just as easily state the inverse? How would stating "It seems to me that the farming industry has problems of their own (in this case water shortage) that fishermen shouldn't care about." be any different?

I'm not sure how that changes what I said or how it gives permission for anything, but ok.

 

[Midwest Lib]

I'm not sure how that changes what I said or how it gives permission for anything, but ok.

It doesn't change a thing in regards to what you said. I am simply pointing out that you are making this issue very one sided, seemingly based off one very brief article.

 

[Henrin]

It doesn't change a thing in regards to what you said. I am simply pointing out that you are making this issue very one sided, seemingly based off one very brief article.

The issue is one sided when the government picks a side.

 

[Midwest Lib]

I posted this the last time this issue presented itself. It's slightly dated but still gives a fair perspective to the situation from both sides.

Water Shortage Wilts Calif.'s San Joaquin Valley - Newsweek

But Barry Nelson, the Natural Resources Defense Council advocate behind the fish lawsuits, says the fish vs. people argument is nonsense. Even after three years of drought, the Central Valley Project (CVP) is still making half of its water deliveries to farms in the valley. Westlands just isn't getting that water. "There's a myth in the valley about the delta smelt, and it's really a tragedy," he says. "I don't mean for a moment to suggest that those small communities on the west side aren't seeing impacts; they are. They're seeing the impact of drought, and those impacts are real and they're hard." Nelson contends that the fish aren't the problem; it's the way the system is set up. Just adjacent to Westlands, he says, four other contractors are getting a full 100 percent of their water allocation this year, despite the drought. And while Westlands has adopted some of the most water-efficient irrigation methods in the business, other farmers in the valley with senior water rights are under no pressure to conserve. The result is a patchwork valley, where a Westlands farmer like Mark Borba is forced to fallow land while his neighbor has excess water that he can sell at a hefty profit. Buying that excess and pumping water from underground is sustainable to a point, says Borba. But the expenses—and the poor quality of the underground water—would drive the business into the ground in the long term.

Very good article, actually shows both sides of the story quite well and show that there is more than is shown in the news report and the OP. It shows that there is and has been quite a struggle in resource management between northern and southern California, and is being exacerbated by a three year long drought. On top of that, shows that it's not "all about the fish" as the OP and video state. It's a bad situation, but it's not as simple as "let's cut off the farmers to save the fish" In fact, it's more about keeping an ecosystem in place that is trying to balance both agriculture and marine life (mainly salmon).

Again, this is a really tricky situation as it would involve and effect a lot of people on both sides of the issue, but I don't think it's as heartless as it is being made to seem.

 

[Barbbtx]

It doesn't change a thing in regards to what you said. I am simply pointing out that you are making this issue very one sided, seemingly based off one very brief article.

It doesn't change the fact that the whole thing started in 2007 to save a 2" fish that was endangered. That ended up with families waiting in lines for food and importing food from China. Has everyone gone nuts in America? I'm sure other countries think so.

Ag Alert - Policymakers, farmers ponder smelt decision

Fallout continues from the Aug. 31 federal court decision aimed at protecting delta smelt as farmers and politicians try to translate what the ruling means for agriculture and the state. The judge's order changes the way water is exported from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and could end up reducing water supplies for farms and homes by 2 million acre-feet a year.

 

[Midwest Lib]

The issue is one sided when the government picks a side.

Well that's just a logical fallacy. Clearly your opposition, as well as Palin's in this situation, indicates that there are in fact two sides. Flipping a coin that lands on heads hardly makes tails nonexistent.

Also, I am not trying to tell you what to believe. I do, however, wish that you would read the article posted above in full before making any more decisions on your position. The article linked in the OP of this thread is just far too limited in scope to give a reader ANY idea what is going on.

 

[Henrin]

Well that's just a logical fallacy. Clearly your opposition, as well as Palin's in this situation, indicates that there are in fact two sides. Flipping a coin that lands on heads hardly makes tails nonexistent.

Also, I am not trying to tell you what to believe. I do, however, wish that you would read the article posted above in full before making any more decisions on your position. The article linked in the OP of this thread is just far too limited in scope to give a reader ANY idea what is going on.

Or I just don't care about the fish and care more about the freedom of both sides.

 

[Midwest Lib]

Or I just don't care about the fish and care more about the freedom of both sides.

Yet you have shown NO evidence that you understand the subject matter at hand. I am not implying that you are wrong, just uninformed. I implore you, read the article that I posted and give your thoughts.

 

[Henrin]

Yet you have shown NO evidence that you understand the subject matter at hand. I am not implying that you are wrong, just uninformed. I implore you, read the article that I posted and give your thoughts.

Not all that interested to read all that much. Thanks though.

 

[Midwest Lib]

Not all that interested to read all that much. Thanks though.

That's fine, and this will be my last post to you unless you change your mind at some point in time. You have stated yourself that you have no desire to further your knowledge on this situation beyond one viewpoint based on a very short article. I doubt anything I say could sway you, even though if you were to look at my post history that I am not advocate of either side. I am just sick of people reading one thing and pretending they have a grasp on the subject matter.

 

[Henrin]

That's fine, and this will be my last post to you unless you change your mind at some point in time. You have stated yourself that you have no desire to further your knowledge on this situation beyond one viewpoint based on a very short article. I doubt anything I say could sway you, even though if you were to look at my post history that I am not advocate of either side. I am just sick of people reading one thing and pretending they have a grasp on the subject matter.

The federal government had no authority in the situation. The situation isn't that serious to me. Government is not in the business of worrying about fish.

 

[Midwest Lib]

Oh, you mean they finally turned the water back on for the farmers? If not, then she is not late, and it's still a problem.

A century ago, much of the San Joaquin Valley was an undeveloped dust bowl, its few small farming communities clustered around natural water sources. Today, it is a green expanse of agricultural empires. Most of the water that has irrigated these seemingly endless fields comes from northern California, diverted by an epic system of dams and canals born from New Deal funds. It was one of the most ambitious water systems ever built, and the San Joaquin Valley became, in the words of historian Kevin Starr, "the most productive unnatural environment on Earth."

Realize first, Barb, that this is in no way a bait, but instead a question to help me calibrate your belief system.

This area originally flourished due to government action in the form of dams, canals, etc. Firstly, do you believe that these farmers have a fundamental right to this water? If so, why?

 

[Midwest Lib]

The federal government had no authority in the situation. The situation isn't that serious to me. Government is not in the business of worrying about fish.

Well, I've made a liar out of myself for responding, but one part of your post is too important not to respond to. I will ask you the a similar question to what I asked Barb. Do you believe that these farmers have a right to this water? And if so, why should government be in the business of providing an unnatural supply of water to farmers?

 

[Henrin]

Well, I've made a liar out of myself for responding, but one part of your post is too important not to respond to. I will ask you the a similar question to what I asked Barb. Do you believe that these farmers have a right to this water? And if so, why should government be in the business of providing an unnatural supply of water to farmers?

Remove them. This question however is immaterial. Removing the system that moved the water is not in the governments interest.

 

[PeteEU]

Palin being an idiot again.. I am shocked.... or not. Maybe if she tried living in a drought area then she would understand.. I know the Sahara is nice this time of year