Sunday’s top of the scroll: Are ‘misguided environmentalists’ using the ESA to “elevate plant and wildlife species above the economic, social and even physical needs and endeavors of people”? or is “growing water-thirsty alfalfa and taxpayer-supported cotton in the San Joaquin Valley is more important than salmon – or people”?

In the Sacramento Bee’s “Join the Conversation”, two opposing commentaries:

Blame ’shortage’ on misguided environmentalists, writes David Stirling of the Pacific Legal Foundation:

For the past 36 years, some environmentalists or hardcore “greens” have used the heavy hand of the 1973 federal Endangered Species Act to elevate plant and wildlife species above the economic, social and even physical needs and endeavors of people.

This began in earnest with the first U.S. Supreme Court case testing the Endangered Species Act’s scope and authority (Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 1978). The court declared that by enacting the ESA Congress intended to preserve listed species at “whatever the cost.”

While it is curiously troubling that the Supreme Court viewed a law like the Endangered Species Act as beyond challenge on costs to taxpayers, this court-created fiction about the inviolability of the ESA continues as judicial precedent. As a result, the lower federal courts regard the ESA as a “super statute,” enabling species preservation to trump human interests and endeavors in nearly all circumstances.

Read the full text of David Stirling’s commentary by clicking here.

Agribusiness puts subsidized crops ahead of people, says Jim Jones, past president of the Save the American River Association:

Apparently the governor thinks growing water-thirsty alfalfa and taxpayer-supported cotton in the San Joaquin Valley is more important than salmon – or people. But the fishermen, communities, and their residents and business owners up and down the California coast which depended on the once-prolific salmon runs are people, too. They just don’t have the voice or political clout and millions of dollars for politicians’ campaigns and public relations firms that agribusiness can employ to get its message out.

The recent report from biologists at the National Marine Fisheries Service suggested a 5 percent to 7 percent reduction in water deliveries to San Joaquin Valley agriculture under certain conditions. That would hardly be the calamity that the governor would have us believe.

A far more responsible response to the biological opinion came in a statement from Donald Glaser, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s regional director: “We have to just find better ways to make efficient use of the water we have,” he said.

Read the full text of Jim Jones’ commentary by clicking here.

Join the conversation at the Sacramento Bee by clicking here.

Comments

Admin

• Log in

Credits

Powered by Vertigo & WordPress
WordPress Themes by Brian Gardner