In California salmon in the San Joaquin River are apparently worth $178,000,000...per fish!
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ck_salmon.html
Printable View
In California salmon in the San Joaquin River are apparently worth $178,000,000...per fish!
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ck_salmon.html
Well, I got mad after the second paragraph and that's as far as I went.
I don't buy it. This is not a simple issue.
A Republican tried to win the Congressional seat - yet lost. Now, we've got a Republican saying the end result is all wrong, after the fact. And you think we see bias?. Yes, we do.
Hunter
the Delta Water quality costs boiled down to one species of fish. Total BS. The Delta supports Wildfowl. fish, game animals, and bay area drinking water. now add in the dollars returned to the economy by all the folks that hunt, fish, and boat. These folks support the arms and ammo manufacturers, the boating industry, auto industry. The folks that make and sell the outdoor clothing that they buy to wear doing their recreating. the hotels that they stay in. the gas stations. the restaurants. Then lets add in all the sales taxes and the construction and service jobs that support the cities that draw their drinking water from the delta without which they would not exist.. Yeah so lets let the ecosystem collapse and watch the economic ripple effect across the country...
What you all are seeing is exactly why I don't read the "americanstinker" anymore---unless provoked by our good friend Joe.
If you want to "stroke" your conservative proclivities it is a comfortable place to go, if you want to objectively form opinions---not so much. I did not stop reading their material because I disagreed with them but because factually they are devoid of intellectual honesty.
For no other reason, I am mildly alarmed by their inroads into government via trump.
Were dams removed and agriculture deprived of millions of acre feet of water in the name of a fish which is plentiful elsewhere, or not?
I honestly cannot say that based on the link you posted. I don't have a lot of time to pursue this today but I offer two bits of commentary on this issue. First, there is a large amount of information on this issue, you might want to begin here.Quote:
Originally Posted by wacojoe
Secondly, a number of years ago Greenie posted a similar thread about the removal of dams in Maine and the loss of hydro power as a result. It all seemed alarming if you went no further---but if you dared to pursue the issue it turned into the proverbial onion---there was a long and important list of reasons for doing what they were doing--and the loss of hydro power was a red herring meant to cloak the critics with a green jacket.
As for the "value" of the removed dams---in reality very few were still producing even enough power to give someone a shock and virtually all were structurally compromised. If you want to probe that potential problem, read an in depth look at the Johnstown damn failure and resulting flood which killed upwards of 2200 people.
I am not suggesting any of these dams had the potential for destruction that was seen in Johnstown--what I am saying is that these kinds of stories have many issues and to make a viable determination requires looking openly at all the aspects--they are never black and white.
The issue is not the power from the dams, it is the reservoirs of water that can be used to grow food in the bread basket of America. As I am certain was noticed during the recent fires even by greenies, California has a history of water scarcity. Rebuilding dams is one thing; tearing them down and permanently removing them is another.
...and to that we agree. All I am saying is, unless you look at all the issues in play, it is impossible to come to an informed determination and based on your link that is impossible.Quote:
Rebuilding dams is one thing; tearing them down and permanently removing them is another.
This article is 23 years old and doesn't really get around to what we are talking about. https://www.google.com/search?q=how+...&ie=UTF-8There have been 36 small damns removed in Cali in the last 30 years, most more recent than 1995 There have been 1150 damns removed in the U.S. but the problems most seem to have been in Cali. It's not so. Most of the dams were obsolete and or downright dangerous. Half of the groups going after the dams are doing what needs to be done, half are just wetting their pants at the chance of tearing down another damn. I can't find a number on hydroelectric dams removed but I did find a group that said id lake powell goes down continuously for X amount of years there would be no need to keep it, there are wackos everywhere. https://www.americanrivers.org/2018/...moval-in-2017/Quote:
Originally Posted by Honda
A little off the subject but recently there was an article about dams and ponds in Texas. Seems many were built many many years ago and are to the point of no longer being considered safe. The number was roughly 2000 or so. Now I know those ponds some farmer built might have been great years ago but they are now considered a danger to residents below when they collapse. As for the if any produced power that I don't know.
https://www.govtech.com/em/disaster/...ase-Flood.html
Get a big rain and watch out below.