In December 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued what is known as a “biological opinion” imposing water reductions on the San Joaquin Valley and environs to safeguard the federally protected hypomesus transpacificus, a.k.a., the delta smelt. As a result, tens of billions of gallons of water from mountains east and north of Sacramento was channelled away from farmers and into the ocean, leaving hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land fallow or scorched.

Democrats created a dust bowl based on junk science.

A federal judge ruled on in December 2010 that the liberal study that forced California officials to cutback on water to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta was based on faulty science.

Despite this Barack Obama said he would veto any Congressional bill that would “reverse the progress” (drought) in the San Joaquin Valley.
Investor’s reported, via HotAir:

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1837, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act because the bill would unravel decades of work to forge consensus, solutions, and settlements that equitably address some of California’s most complex water challenges.

H.R. 1837 would undermine five years of collaboration between local, State, and Federal stakeholders to develop the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. It would codify 20-year old, outdated science as the basis for managing California’s water resources, resulting in inequitable treatment of one group of water users over another. And, contrary to 100 years of reclamation law that exhibits congressional deference to State water law, the bill would preempt California water law.

The bill also would reject the long-standing principle that beneficiaries should pay both the cost of developing water supplies and of mitigating any resulting development impacts, and would exacerbate current water shortages by repealing water pricing reforms that provide incentives for contractors to conserve water supplies.

Finally, H.R. 1837 would repeal the San Joaquin River Settlement Agreement, which the Congress enacted to resolve 18 years of contentious litigation. Repeal of the settlement agreement would likely result in the resumption of costly litigation, creating an uncertain future for river restoration and water delivery operations for all water users on the San Joaquin River.

The Administration strongly supports efforts to provide a more reliable water supply for California and to protect, restore, and enhance the overall quality of the Bay-Delta environment. The Administration has taken great strides toward achieving these co-equal goals through a coordinated Federal Action Plan, which has strengthened collaboration between Federal agencies and the State of California while achieving solid results. Unfortunately, H.R. 1837 would undermine these efforts and the progress that has been made. For this reason, were the Congress to pass H.R. 1837, the President’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Here are the facts on California’s Central Valley, via the Natural Resources Committee:

** California’s water storage and transportation system designed by federal and state governments includes 1,200 miles of canals and nearly 50 reservoirs that provide water to about 22 million people and irrigate about four million acres of land throughout the state.

** In May 2007, a Federal District Court Judge ruled that increased amounts of water had to be re-allocated towards protecting the Delta smelt – a three-inch fish on the Endangered Species List.

** Because of this ruling, in 2009 and 2010 more than 300 billion gallons (or 1 million acre-feet) of water were diverted away from farmers in the Central Valley and into the San Francisco Bay – eventually going out into the Pacific Ocean.

** This man-made drought cost thousands of farm workers their jobs, inflicted up to 40 percent unemployment in certain communities, and fallowed hundreds of thousands of acres of fertile farmland.

** Unemployment remains at a regional average of 17%. With current precipitation at near-record lows, the same regulations will be imposed pushing unemployment even higher.

** The Pelosi-led Congress did nothing to reverse the plight of the San Joaquin Valley and even obstructed repeated Republican actions to reverse the situation. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act reflects Republican promises to avoid another man-made drought.




Disable Refresh for 30 Days

Cookies and JavaScript must be enabled for your setting to be saved.

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

1 2 3 5

  1. Typical of this administration. Publicly says he’s all about creating/saving jobs, yet does nothing to fix this problem. All for a 3 inch fish. This man needs to go in Nov 2012!

  2. Unbelievable.

    America – wake up. Communism is happening right in front of your eyes.

    Obama and his Commie Goons enjoy seeing people suffer.

    No one will be immune if they get their way.

  3. It’s interesting that all the talk is how the San Joaquin Valley is affected. No mention is made of the California Aqueduct, which sends water from the Delta all the way down to the Los Angeles area to slake their thirst.

    Here’s something to try: If the feds are all worried about some stupid little bait fish, then use the same premise to cut back the water allocation that goes to the Southern CA megalopolis. I’m willing to bet the Democrats will backtrack real quick.

  4. Doesn’t matter how much Obummer screws these people because he knows that they will still vote for him.

  5. I hope November would get here already. This commie is destroying every inch of this country.

  6. This is truly comparable to the actions of a Stalin or Mao. Unbelievable. But starvation is a powerful weapon, isn’t it. Coming soon.

  7. Isn’t Obama just protecting the environment?

    If anything is “awful,” its the Republicans and the farmers who are trying to destroy the environment with this bill.

    Republicans are pro-life and pro-property rights until it comes to destroying the lives of a fish who lives on this land.

  8. This is the same man who demands women have the right to murder their unborn, supports infanticide, demands Christians pay for contraception and abortions for employees, but is intent on saving stupid smelt. Insanity. Is there any rhyme or reason to this madness; no, because it is madness.

  9. Isn’t Obama just protecting the environment?

    If a fish can’t be fried up and a good meal made out of it, then maybe it’s not worth the attention.

  10. “Republicans are pro-life and pro-property rights until it comes to destroying the lives of a fish who lives on this land.”

    The lives of a fish who lives on this land? Actually fish live in the water and fish are for eating. There is a huge difference between saving the life of a human being and a damn fish.

  11. Farmers now is the time for civil disobedience and go turn the water on. You know it’s the right thing to do, so go do it.

    What liberal Democrats have done was a long time ago they had to figure out how to turn America into a Socialist nation without the Constitution. They figured it out. They started making what is called…..decree’s, a decree… Look this word up so that you can see for yourself what that word means. The Democrats knew that there were some people who would know what they were doing, so in order to disguise these decree’s to look like laws, they worked them through the law making process so that no one could say they were not making law. They worked these decree’s all through the lawmaking process including getting the President to sign them. Do I think a President would know the difference between a real law and a decree? No, especially if Democrats did and said all the right things about the bill that made everyone believe they were laws they were making. They weren’t, they were decree’s.

    I dawned on me one night that there is only one way that a bill could become law, and that is if it is in agreement with the Constitution. No bill can become law unless it is in agreement with the Constitution. And why does it have to agree with the Constitution and these don’t, is because these aren’t laws, they are decree’s dressed up to look and sound like laws that have passed before. See, it’s the language the Democrats have learned how to write on paper to make it sound like a law.

    What the Socialist did in order to get the people to obey something that takes their rights away from them like the law that prohibits the farmers to be able to use the water they have for generations does, was to tell the police that they have to arrest anyone who doesn’t agree to obey this “law”. But that is just it, the people don’t have to obey a decree because America does not operate by decree, it operates by laws, laws that are in agreement with the Constitution, and can only become law if they do agree with the Constitution. And since most of the Democrat decree’s don’t agree with the Constitution, the Democrats had to tell the police to arrest anyone who does not obey them.

    So the Democrats have established a “police state” in order to get the people to obey something they shouldn’t and don’t have to obey. See, America is not a Democracy. It is not a orlegorchi, it is not a royalty, it is not anything that could operate by decree. America is a Constitutional Republic. That means we have a Constitution. It is the law of the land, and everything has to agree with it in order to be included in the other laws of the land. If they don’t, then the people don’t have to obey them and this decree that prohibits the farmers from being able to have all the water they need, the farmers need to disobey, and disobey right now. And that is regardless of what the police tell them. If the police don’t go along with the farmers then it is time for the farmers to act on their Constituttional right and turn the water on no matter what happens, the water must be turned on!

  12. Re: #11 If a fish can’t be fried up and a good meal made out of it, then maybe it’s not worth the attention.

    But if you fry fish, wouldn’t that harm them and harm the environment? Some environmentalists lately reported that the fish population is declining due to people eating them and that fish have rights. I mean, how would you feel if someone ate you? I bet you wouldn’t like it. That’s why a lot of environmentalists have recently become vegetarians.

  13. Re: #14 Farmers now is the time for civil disobedience and go turn the water on. You know it’s the right thing to do, so go do it.

    By “civil disobedience” do you mean violence and racism like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street? I know Occupy Wall Street has been “largely peaceful”, so I don’t mean to drag them into this, but they have also professed support for civil disobedience. Basically putting water on those crops and killing the fish would violate the law. What you’re saying is anything is allowed and that we should have moral relativity. Sure, murder may be illegal, but it’s not wrong if you are just creating “civil disobedience.” Just wait until the GOP repeals Obamacare in 2012 and then a mob of thugs steals a bunch of money from you and imprisons some doctors to give them free medical care just because they think that everyone should have socialized medicine, the law be damned. That’s what you’re advocating in trying to get people to violate the law. People will be stealing your guns by “civil disobedineting” the Second Amendment and raising your taxes through “civil disobedience.”

  14. In ruling against the farmers, the Democrats are nothing less than barbarian filth. Yes, barbarian filth. They would rather tear down dams and reservoirs providing life-giving water to millions who grow food that feeds tens of millions around the world. All in their desire to worship their earth goddess Gaia.

    These Democrat Barbarians would rather see the US go back to the dark ages than allow some farmers to employ some to feed many.

  15. The lives of a fish who lives on this land? Actually fish live in the water.

    There is a fish who lives in water elsewhere who is like 2 inches long or something, and if farmers water their plants, that fish’s water will like disappear or something, which is why Obama opposes this bill. Those who support this bill would invoke the “eminent domain” clause to call for taking the fish’s home (water), but I feel this is eminent domain abuse by big government.


    Obama could never have been a U.S. citizen even if born in the U.S., of which he wasn’t, because his mother at the age of 18 could not transfer citizenship to him. Good little article. Remember tomorrow Sheriff Joe’s report comes out on Obama’s eligibility.

  17. Theis area is part of the ‘Agenda 21′ territory. Look it up and see.

1 2 3 5


© Copyright 2015, All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions