The fact that Sally Lieber is a democrat explains a lot. Second, city folk think that food comes from the market. They have no idea of where it comes from before then. As for environmentalists, why on earth do we let this small but vocal minority ruin everything?

Living out in the farmlands and paying for water by the acre foot to irrigate crops with, this is a big issue here. I'm an environmentalist at heart but that's not supposed to be a bad word. It's something we all had better take very seriously in the future. But now this water issue has become absurd. Agriculture in this state is far and away more important than the little fish. Agriculture directly effects this state's economy as we feed a great deal of the country and beyond. How is it that the smelt or some salmon are more important than the well being of this state's economy and food on our tables? What am I missing? This is more than just a few farmworkers out of a job too, it's much bigger than that.

I view many of the environmentalist groups like I view the NRA. They fight for some things that need fighting for, and that's good. But they don't seem to see any gray areas where further thought might be needed. The NRA fights for gun rights, that's fine. But they cross the line when they defend everyone's right to own assault weapons such as machine guns. The same holds true for the environmental groups. Case and point...this issue. They've crossed the line on this one.

I'm a Democrat but I can't agree with them and Sally Lieber on this one. They need to re-think.

The National Rifle Association, Scot's simile for the coenvironmentally disordered whom he currently disagrees with, has had its day in court. As a result its membership, in spite of his inaccurate pot shots, will rightly (in the U.S. Constitutional sense of the word) swell beyond his wildest imagination.

I now yield to real discussion.

It has been written a long time ago that the past stands eternally still.
Not to make the past ones enemy.

But that is exactly what we have done. Especially here in the San Joaquin Valley.The scientists have warned us over 50 year ago that air and water are heading for serious problems if residential and industrial development would be allowed
to mega-mushroom in areas where maintaining them adequately indefinitely
would be impossible.

Rehashing the findings would be cumbersome and anyhow, it would be preaching to the quire. A middle road is no longer our luxury. Only extreme technology shall be able to provide. I believe Israel is a good example. And it is expensive.

...those farmworkers income or lack of, is supporting, or not, many hundreds of communities in Mexico that were victimized by NAFTA policy...won't somebody please think of the children? (the Mexican ninos)...what's it gonna be? Smelt or Los Pobrecitos? I'm not at all concerned with the 500 or so "Family farms" that require 80% of OUR water. I'm confident they'll land on their feet...hell, at worst, they could boast of "lake-frontage" when we restore our Lake. I rather like that; "Tulare Lake year-round recreation"... full-time employment!

80% of YOUR water? Two different waters there swift. Irrigation water doesn't have to be cleaned, cleared, chlorinated, etc. It can be dredged up from the bottom of a canal. It just has to be water. And it grows your food, your clothing and raises your meat and poultry.

Some local folks are quite useful biting the hand that feeds them. Even though they are surrounded by a unique agricultural miracle, they are always wishing they lived somewhere else. They can talk up San Francisco and Europe till the cows come home. Unfortunately, while they are figuring out where else it is they would rather be, they support the fair apportionment of water by anyone but we who are proud to call the central San Joaquin Valley our home.

It's all the same water at the source, whether or not it's treated for municipal use down the line. And while it's true that some of it is used to grow our food, a lot of it is used to grow subsidized, water-thirsty crops like cotton, which could be grown more cheaply elsewhere. That's insane.

Mike D.
Before you replace an entire valley agricultural industry with Underarmour and other by-products of middle eastern oil, please tell us where water is less precious and cotton can be grown more cheaply. Have you selected a few acres for yourself yet?

Incidentally, cotton is the most common fiber used in the medical field to make sterile dressings and bandages. Perhaps you have secured a medical plan that offers a hemp and bamboo alternative. Please keep us posted.

Why is it all or nothing with some people? I haven't said or implied anything about replacing the entire Valley agricultural industry. But nor do I think it should be treated like a sacred cow.

You want to know where cotton can be grown more cheaply? Try Africa. Our subsidies (paid by our tax dollars) to mega-farmers like Boswell to grow cotton with government-supplied water systems seriously undercut the ability of African farmers to earn a living. There are lots of places in this world where cotton can be grown without massive irrigation projects. The Valley ain't one of them.

"Why is it all or nothing with some people?"

"Try Africa"

Do you mean all of Africa? All of the African Farmers?

For some people a decision is followed by action or inaction. It is an all or nothing world you live in, it only looks in-between to you.

No, not all of Africa. Africa is a big place. But some areas are ideally suited for cotton growing. But the agricultural policies of the rich nations (particularly the U.S.) make it hard for them to succeed. Letting them grow and sell more cotton, and eliminating subsidies for American corporate farmers would be a win/win for them and the U.S. taxpayer.

I honestly don't understand your final point. Are you saying everything is all or nothing? Either we let Big Ag have everything it wants, or we eliminate agriculture in the Valley? That doesn't make any sense to me.