Paul C. Barton
Desert Sun Washington Bureau
February 6th, 2012
Summary:
Delta smelt are a fish species native to the Central Valley of California. The problem is that water is pumped out of the Central Valley rivers and lakes for irrigation and farming. The farmers produce large amounts of produce that supplies much of the population. However, ever since put under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, water pumping from these regions is limited. Before this, the delta smelt population has been decreasing rapidly, enough to be out under protection of the Endangered Species Act. This has a huge affect on the farmers, who say that this will lead to fewer, more expensive produce. The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Desert Water Agency have been to court numerous times to try and settle this. Saying that economic consequences are to be kept out of the equation, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has won every time. The Desert Water Agency states that farmers will be put out of business, and cause doom for the regional economy.
Opinion/Reflection:
Im surprised at how much the farmers rely on the lakes. I mean California is next to an ocean, couldn't they just purify that water? The delta smelt only need the few lakes and rivers they are in, and the ocean has a nearly unlimited supply of water. If I were to make the decision, I would stop pumping water from the delta smelts' lakes and rivers, and just get purifiers to purify the ocean water. I agree with the government that economics should be kept our of environmental decisions, as the survival of a species is far more important. Removing the delta smelt would ruin the ecosystem, and cause other species to die or overgrow. The farmers have alternative water sources, and should use those.
Questions:
1. Do you think that the rivers and lakes with the delta smelt should't have water pumped from them? Why?
2. If you were to make the decision, who would you have sided with?
3. Should economics play into environmental decisions?
4. Would switching to using and purifying ocean water be better for the farmers? What are some advantages of switching?
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteSaving the Delta Smelt fish in California is a goal that entails just too many costs on people and the economy. Specifically, preservation will increase the costs of fruits and vegetables for all consumers and a substantial loss of jobs, causing more damage to a economy already under great stress. A permanent elimination of water pumping from the delta would be devastating economically. The best solution on balance is to stay with the current practice of restricting water pumps only some of the year. This way helps the fish while avoiding economic overkill. I know the Endangered Species Act accounts simply the welfare of animals and pays no attention to economic consequences. However, the human population is a species too, and although we are not nearing extinction, we still should be protected at some level.
Question 3 (Should economics play into environmental decisions?):
Economics has to play a role in environmental decisions, for it is wrong to allow any policy to be an absolute factor completely separate from any balancing context. For example, even free speech is not absolute, as the prohibited case of crying fire in an auditorium shows. Quite simply, no single policy can be viewed as above all other matters and factors. So, even though protecting species is important and desirable, that admirable goal has to be pursued in the full context of all the goods governmental action is responsible to develop and sustain.
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that farmers will use water from lakes and rivers instead of the big water source they already have nearby (Pacific Ocean). The Delta Smelt fish’s habitat is diminishing because of the farmers taking the water when they could just try the ocean if they just purified the water. I use water for many things everyday (drinking, shower, etc.) and to see that an abiotic factor like that can play a huge part to how fish like the Delta Smelt live is really amazing to think about. It is great that US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Desert Water Agency are trying to stop famers from pumping water from the lakes and rivers of the Delta Smelt. I believe that it is great to try and preserve more organisms like the Delta Smelt so that there is a greater biodiversity. I agree that purifiers would be better to get for farmers instead of pumping from lakes and rivers. As the Delta fish are part of a food web I think that preserving them for a greater biodiversity is key part to ecosystems.
Expansion: Question 2
I would side with the Desert Water Agency because farmers have another source to get water from as long as they have a purifier but will not. I think that farmers are wasting a good resource and technology we now have so that Delta Smelt habitats will not get harmed with water loss. With new technology I think it is a great to preserve as much as we can instead of wasting what we already have. Overall preserving the Delta Smelt will help preserves a better biodiversity which can help humans in return. Biodiversity increases medicine, food, shelter, industrial uses, and etc.
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteIt is good how the government is trying to save another species from extinction. I personally have never heard of Delta Smelt and do not know much about them. It is great how they have decided to slow pumping down. I am divided on this subject because although I would like of this species to live and make a comeback we have to have some pumping. Our economy is in ruins right now and we must try and do anything to help it. And although I would want complete a stop to pumping we have to have some.
Questions:
1. Will the farmers still pump water even though it is against the law?
2. What other ways will the farmers try and get alternate sources of water?
3. Would this be a hard decision for the government because of the economy?
Opinion/Reflection: When I started reading this summary, I thought, "...Another endangered species issue." I thought this because the human race simply does not understand how important all species are to Earth and money does not always take precedence. The pond smelt are part of the food chain in those lakes and if they are removed, the entire ecosystem has a possibility of crashing, as we learned in class. And if the ecosystem crashes, then even more endangered species will evolve. As Nick said, why can't the farmers just take water from the largest ocean in the world that they are next to, the Pacific Ocean. However, it would be rather expensive to purify that water, but still I believe any species life is more important than monetary value.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2:
I believe I would have sided with the US Fish and Wildlife Service because, like I said above, a species survival is more important than money...plus in the long run it would probably cost us even more to keep the ecosystem intact if the pond smelt disappeared. However, this would come to a very large bill since it would cost a lot of money to preserve the fish and purify saltwater for the farmers (and they may even lose business as well). Also, another plus for the environment is that less water would be wasted, since there is only about 1% of fresh, drinkable water on Earth. If the farmers used the 97% saltwater on Earth, that would be a lot more efficient. Therefore, they should use the water no one is drinking, instead of using the freshwater that is needed to support a large majority of life, including the pond smelt. So if it were my choice, I rather save a life than save a dollar.
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that farmers will use water from lakes and rivers instead of the big water source they already have nearby (Pacific Ocean). The Delta Smelt fish’s habitat is diminishing because of the farmers taking the water when they could just try the ocean if they just purified the water. I use water for many things everyday (drinking, shower, etc.) and to see that an abiotic factor like that can play a huge part to how fish like the Delta Smelt live is really amazing to think about. It is great that US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Desert Water Agency are trying to stop famers from pumping water from the lakes and rivers of the Delta Smelt. I believe that it is great to try and preserve more organisms like the Delta Smelt so that there is a greater biodiversity. I agree that purifiers would be better to get for farmers instead of pumping from lakes and rivers. As the Delta fish are part of a food web I think that preserving them for a greater biodiversity is key part to ecosystems.
Expansion: Question 2
I would side with the US Fish and Wildlife Service because farmers have another source to get water from as long as they have a purifier but will not. I think that farmers are wasting a good resource and technology we now have so that Delta Smelt habitats will not get harmed with water loss. With new technology I think it is a great to preserve as much as we can instead of wasting what we already have. Overall preserving the Delta Smelt will help preserves a better biodiversity which can help humans in return. Biodiversity increases medicine, food, shelter, industrial uses, and etc.
Fixed a few words in the expansion first sentence.
Delete