Thanks for your comment. It’s absolutely true that conditions for farmers of the CA central valley are very dire. It was not my intention to discount that fact. Estimates suggest the farmers are within one year of potential collapse. It’s a problem that will effect more than just American families, it will effect the world. The central valley is the world’s largest producer of nuts, fruits, and vegetables. It’s also one of the nation’s largest producers of dairy, cheese, rice, beef, and poultry. Unresolved water issues in that region are ones we will all feel, not just the farmers.

My intention with the post was to point out how the story is poorly told if only focused on the carefully selected sensationalized portions. If we’re going to solve the problem, let’s talk about the issue in its entirety. To couch it only as a battle between fish and farms, stripped of all other context, is disingenuous journalism. Disregarding the complexity raises questions about motive. I think that’s fair to say without dismissing the farmer’s plight.

My understanding of Mr. Chu’s comment about CA agriculture was related to potential worst case scenario climate change impacts on the central valley. And you are right, his language is just as inflammatory. Using the specter of future catastrophe to gain leverage in the climate change energy policy conversation is just as wrong. I should point out sensationalist rhetoric on both sides.

A good idea for some future posts. Thanks,

I guess I can ignore Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s boast that “We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California”, because of the shortcomings of Hannity’s presentation or Rodriguez’s comment about the farmer’s lack of interest in handouts.

For better or worse, the food on your table is there because of the water projects financed by the taxpayer. Turning them off because of the Delta Smelt seems to be a fig leaf for something far more sinister.

Unless, of course you think Dr. Chu is just blowing dust.