Dead San Joaquin River will be revived

San Joaquin Phoenix

More than 60 miles of California's dead, sandy San Joaquin River may yet run with water and salmon again, as enviros and farmers have settled an 18-year legal battle over the river's fate. Based on a new 20-year, $250-to-$800 million restoration plan, agricultural water diversion from the river will be reduced by an average of 15 percent and the spring chinook salmon run, wiped out by a dam in 1942, will be revived. "The magnitude of this restoration effort … is virtually unprecedented in the American West," says Hal Candee of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of 14 green groups that sued the Bureau of Reclamation in 1988. Water for agriculture may be recirculated, stored, or bought at a discount from the federal government; a representative for the 15,000 area farmers says growers are "optimistic that we can successfully implement the agreement."

straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Bettina Boxall, 14 Sep 2006

straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Glen Martin, 14 Sep 2006

straight to the source: The Mercury News, Yomi S. Wronge, 13 Sep 2006

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (4 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Polluting the atm to counter polluting the atm?

I guess it might work, but have we really evolved to such a point of insanity that we are ready to cut off our nose to spite our face?

Wouldn't it make more sense to curb CO2 pollution?

What difference would 50 years make? Does anyone think we would suddenly become responsible stewards of the land then if we are unable to now?

If we can't stop our bad habits with a little common sense, then perhaps it would be best to just let nature run it's course.

by bdemello at 7:32 AM on 16 Sep 2006

Good Idea

There are a number of ideas floating around to actively cool the Earth (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/science/earth/27cool.html?ex=1309060800&en=516dc103cf6b4861&am p;ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss).
There is a danger that these ideas will give the false impression that we can simply build our way out of the problem. Every scientist I've heard comment about the ideas is careful to point out that active cooling is not a magic bullet. They all say that this must go hand in hand with reducing CO2 consumption.

It would be nice if we could solve the problem by just reducing our emissions, but this is very unlikely to happen. Despite the fact that we've known about this problem for years ("After the Warming" came out in 1989) we have done very little. None of the protocols currently being discussed (let alone adopted) would solve the problem. This is not a problem caused by the consumption of an obscure set of particulates (like the destruction of the ozone layer) but rather a set of materials that often define an individuals standard of living. Taking the bus, driving a Prius, living in a small apartment and eating local vegan food might help, but it will not be enough. The lifestyle change required would have to be immediate and drastic; I doubt most people would accept it until it became too late.

Even if the developed countries convinced people to change their habits and be extremely more efficient, we would have to somehow convince the poor people of the world to do the same. This could be even more difficult, as we would have to allow them to leap frog our route to economic progress. Again, it would be great if this would happen, but I seriously doubt it will.

Generally speaking, I am an optimist. I believe that the people of the world are progressing (although the last five years may represent a "two step backwards" period before another "three steps forward"). However, I can't realistically see how global warming will be slowed or stopped in time with reductions alone. Nor can I accept the loss of the natural world that will occur because of such warming. The only way I believe the people of the world can solve this problem is with a combination of emission reduction and active cooling.

by RossBleakney at 9:49 AM on 16 Sep 2006

Institutional Change

Most of the time, we seem to be discussing only the personal changes people need to make (and I am not picking on anyone person here, but responding to a general tone in Gristmill postings).

This is dangerous.

We need to realize that insitutions can have a major impact (AND MUST!) by making changes.

For instance, requiring corporate, military and government fleets to use hydrogen powered cars would have an enormous impact.

We need to get away from putting all the onus on individuals.

patrick

by bookerly at 8:15 PM on 16 Sep 2006

SO2 is no solution

I know SO2, SO2 makes acid when mixed with water, that is no friend to the environment nor animal or plant life, it is not even good for minerals. So that is not a good idea. I say try again.

i am not ready to say we can not build our way out of this problem but I think in order to build our way out we are going to have to build wind energy, photovoltaic, geothermal, and tidal power along with the associated transmission, demand control and storage systems. I think that SO2 solutions are so silly as to not be funny.

by ffletcher at 1:08 AM on 17 Sep 2006

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?