U.S. facing crop disaster, joblessness because of Delta Smelt
By dragon54u
@dragon54u (31633)
United States
March 29, 2009 9:11am CST
I'm conflicted in my feelings about a California judge prohibiting pumping water from a California canal to irrigate crops. It seems the little Delta Smile, about the size of a minnow, gets caught and killed in the pumps used to irrigate crops. It is an endangered species because of this so the judge ruled that no water can be pumped at certain times, including the growing season in California. This affects the crops grown in the Central Valley of California where most of our nation's crops are grown.
So, we save the Delta Smelt but we sacrifice billions in crops and increase human misery due to lost jobs and we increase poverty. I realize that every species is precious and the loss of even one makes a significant impact on the ecosystem. However, nature has a way of compensating for such things. Much as I hate to lose a fish, what about the millions of people that depend on the Central Valley for their food? What about the increase in prices due to not having the produce from that valley? We're already in financial crises and this will make it worse.
What do you think? Save the fish and sacrifice our main food supply? Or say the heck with the fish, people come first? You'd think they could breed the fish elsewhere, or is that too much common sense? 
3 responses
@Aussies2007 (5336)
• Australia
31 Mar 09
I say "the heck with the people".
They have done more than enough damage on this planet as it is.
And the reason for it is always the same.
The people and their greed comes first.
So lets kill the fish.
What's one more fish?
Having a few million people dying of starvation in California would do wonder for the ecosystem in diminishing the pollution in one of the most polluted city on Earth.
But why is the fish suddenly in danger of extinction?
Is it not because most of the damage has already been done?
Is it not because they have already pumped so much water out of the canal... that they lowered the level of it... and now they are sucking out the fishes swimming at the bottom?
If the fish is in danger... it must means that they already have killed most of them.
An increase in population does put a higher demand on water.
What will you do when there is no water left?
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
31 Mar 09
There will always be water, theoretically. It is used, evaporates and re-condenses to fall as rain and renew the creeks and rivers and ocean. It's never really gone, it is just stored in the clouds, as snow and precipitation and seeps down into the aquifers.
I'm wondering why they can't build another irrigation system or breed the Delta Smelt in waters safer for its survival.
@Aussies2007 (5336)
• Australia
31 Mar 09
That's where you wrong.
First... two third of the glaciers around the world have melted due to the green house effect and a rise of temperature. It only needs to get one degree above zero for the thing to start melting. Those glaciers were the water supply for the river system in summer.
Second... as the climat change... it does not rain in the same places that it used to rain. If most of the rain start falling over the ocean instead of on the land... no more water.
Australia is having a water shortage since 2000. We now have to build desalination plants in every major cities. Our rivers are dying because the farmers have been pumping them dry. Last year the government told us that we might need to forget about agriculture and give up the game.
Same story in Europe. They have big water shortage in summer. All this has happened in the last 10 years. We are short of water. No two ways about it. Water is about to become more expensive than gazoline.
@peavey (16936)
• United States
20 Apr 09
It's not really a water shortage as such, it's a drought - a natural and cyclical occurrence. Other places are getting more rain than ever. Our northern state of North Dakota is flooded, has been flooded for weeks and is getting more rain. When it doesn't rain in one place, it will rain someplace else.
People may have done damage to the planet, but so have animals, nature and the sun. We have as much right to this planet as they do. I cannot believe the coldness of your heart to say that it would be a good thing for people to die. Do you include yourself and people you care about in that? I hope so.
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
20 Apr 09
The fish are so small, about an inch long, that any suction will probably affect them. I have wondered why they can't relocate the fish or start a breeding farm or something. Fish take priority over humans, I guess, and I'm usually okay with that if it's commercial or residential development of houses and other buildings. But this is the food supply and I don't understand their reasoning.
@srganesh (6339)
• India
5 Jan 10
if that species can grow only in that habitat easily,then we should allow them at their comfort.Man can adjust to any environment and climate and so he had spread all over the globe.Wherever he went,he occupied that area driving away the species of the habitat.It is only now he has realized the importance of all the species to participate in the eco system.So,better humans sacrifice their needs and give room to other species.Let him be pushed to the second place.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
5 Jan 10
I agree and disagree with you. I don't like sacrificing any living creature but we're talking about feeding millions of people.
With everything we have accomplished so far, you would think that they could figure out a system to keep the smelt safe.
