anotherview wrote on Aug 31, 2007 11:25 PM:Please know, dear readers, that the agricultural industry in the state uses most of the available water supply, about 90 percent of it (maybe more). Households use about 5 percent. The rest goes to other uses, like industry and commercial. A simple analysis using high school math shows that 5 percent of 90 percent equals 4.5 percent of the whole 100 percent. Hence, forcing farmers to introduce efficient water use to reduce their water consumption by only 5 percent would nearly match the present household water use. By means of political pressure, however, farmers resist changing their farm irrigation practices. In short, the Golden State has plenty of water available, but the distribution of this water does not happen rationally. Farmers grab most of the water. So any fair and sound solution to the water supply problem must require farmers to stop using so much water. Then others will have enough water.

pHish wrote on Aug 31, 2007 11:43 PM:It's your stupid water dependence and silly water supply system that endangers you. Wise up and live sustainably, like we have for ten times as long as humans have been around.

Hogwash wrote on Sep 1, 2007 1:04 AM:This is crazy, these judges have way too much power. He better not cut the water supply, that is just insane ! ! !

Paul wrote on Sep 1, 2007 1:31 AM:This is totally outrageous. One judge can issue an order to restrict water to 25 million people. And all that to just save that fish. People are more important. Maybe there is some place else to get those fish to breed. They were also mentioning salt water intrusion far up into the bay if too much water is pumped South. This is a factor to consider. They should have built the peripheral canal around the bay years ago when it would have been much cheaper. But the judge said he was enforcing California Law. So the California Legislature could resolve it, except they always vote for radical environmentalists instead of us people.

Ed wrote on Sep 1, 2007 1:48 AM:Few people care about the extinction of these fish. How can a minority group of environmentalist dictate to us whether we receive water in Southern California or not. It is unbelievable that a federal judge can make this ruling. If you were to take a vote in the state of California you would find overwhemling support of not cutting back the water supply to Southern California to save these fish. This state is out of control.

Save the fish wrote on Sep 1, 2007 3:33 AM:Kill the people. How stupid is that???

Stop the Insanity!!! wrote on Sep 1, 2007 5:38 AM:The people will not tolerate this ruling.

RWC wrote on Sep 1, 2007 6:07 AM:So, now fish are more important than people? Are government has gone nuts!

Wall Flower wrote on Sep 1, 2007 6:09 AM:Most water use is to grow food for animals, beef, we eat. Go vegetarian and we will need 90% less water.

Bad Bob wrote on Sep 1, 2007 6:13 AM:We are slowly drifted into a social state government where a few rule over the majority. Big government leads to governement control and taxes. Cut the taxes and cut the control. We need to return to a republic form of government which was established 200 years ago.

Anyone Thought of This? wrote on Sep 1, 2007 6:23 AM:CA has limited resources which cannot support unlimited immigration. Legal or Illegal.

Huh? wrote on Sep 1, 2007 6:33 AM:Since when does the life of a fish take precedence over the life of a human? Truly - the environmentalists are insane! Let them be the first have their water turned off so the fish can live. After all of the tree huggers have succumbed to the laws of Darwinism, our problems will be solved and we can return to a rationale state of being. What nonsense - over a fish - and a smelt at that!

Its not just the fish wrote on Sep 1, 2007 7:12 AM:Our wholesale wasting of water and other resources are what is killing this planet via global warming. LIVE SUSTAINABLY, if you do not know what that mens then google it.

hey Ed wrote on Sep 1, 2007 7:42 AM:You could also take a vote and find that the majority of the state does not want to pay taxes. Hint - self interest usually wins out over the publc good.

Good wrote on Sep 1, 2007 8:10 AM:We can require the last 30% of S.CA residents to move back to where they came. AND QUIT BUILDING MORE HOMES!

Humans are not that important wrote on Sep 1, 2007 8:12 AM:Fish are just as important as humans in my opinion and do much less damage to our mother earth.

GFN wrote on Sep 1, 2007 8:23 AM:If you believe it is "only" a fish, then you do not understand eco-systems that sustain our lives. The fish need to be protected because they are dumb fish; the "intelligent" human being is the animal that needs to adjust. It's time for us to wake up and be as smart as we think we are. Stop the growth until we get full control of our most precious resource.

Howiek wrote on Sep 1, 2007 8:30 AM:A couple of facts you folks are forgetting about: 1) we are in a drought, Sierra Nevada Mountain snow pack was only 63 percent of normal and the Colorado watershed is going into its ninth or tenth year of drought, 2) the population of California continues to grow. The judge in this case came to a reasonable compromise, he could have very easily concluded that a 50 percent cutback was needed to secure the existence of this fish—the Delta Smelt is part of the eco-system in the Sacramento/Delta region. It’s about time that Southern California do what’s right and begin water reclamation—yep, that means recycling our waste water. And just in case you don’t think that’s not a very good idea just look to the north of us to Orange County, they are reportedly about to commission a toilet-to-tap reclamation program in November that will provide as good as distilled water for about 500,000 residents. Put your thinking caps on people, water is pretty scarce in this area, we need to do whatever is necessary to ensure that we have water and that includes water recycling.

Human wrote on Sep 1, 2007 8:32 AM:Kill everything so we can live and breed anywhere we want! We are the only unintelligent thing on the planet and should have our way.

Bye Bye Delta Smelt wrote on Sep 1, 2007 8:46 AM:Get rid of this Judge. He wants to stop the flow of 30 percent of our water supply?! 30 percent of the blood flow has stopped going to his brain. I have a solution. Cut off 100 percent of the water to Wanger and the rest of his environmentalists. Maybe that will help the poor little delta smelt.

RJ wrote on Sep 1, 2007 8:55 AM:Too bad this judge wasn't around to protect the dinosaures from extinction. There are thousands of species which have gone extinct because of the weakness of the species, not the intervention of man. It's survival of the fittest. I think protecting ther water supply of 25 million people, California's agriculture industry (which feeds millions, and protecting California's economy (which would send the whole country into recession or maybe even depression) trumps the stupid smelt. If these fish don't make good sushi then I really don't give a darn about them!

janet wrote on Sep 1, 2007 9:06 AM:Most of my neighbors water their huge lawns every day, rain or shine. One told me that his water bill was $300 to $500 a month. When I walk in any neighborhood, it's pretty much a sure thing that water will be running down the street somewhere. People have plants that require a lot of water, and most have lawns, which are water hogs. I think we have a lot of room to conserve water without any real pain. We live in a desert and we need to act like we do. Stop whining and cut back the 30 gallons a day that is being asked for. It just means you don't leave the water running when you brush your teeth or are rinsing dishes and that you water your lawn less.

North County amazement wrote on Sep 1, 2007 9:08 AM:The judge's ruling placing the value of a 3 inch fish above the value of Southern California PEOPLE is crazy. Also crazy was the decision by San Dieguito Water District Directors Maggie Houlihan, Teresa Barth, and James Bond to NOT enter into discussions with the desalination people who will provide a reiable drought (and judge) proof supply of drinking water in Carlsbad.

Water Pigs wrote on Sep 1, 2007 9:28 AM:Southern California has a dry arid climate so that is why to support the lushly landscaped developments - both residential and commercial -- we have to rely upon imported water. I guess some people think it is okay to kill off a species in order to keep their weeds watered. Get real.

John1 wrote on Sep 1, 2007 9:40 AM:That's a pretty dumb ruling. The judge would have been better to impose a consent decree on efficient water usage rather than arbitrarily cutting water supplies, which will NOT affect ag uses due to their influence, rather individual consumers through rationing and higher food costs.

To Anotherview wrote on Sep 1, 2007 10:24 AM:Please know, 30% of our 5%, leaves us with only 3%. Should we only take a shower every 2 days, instead of each day?! We'll take our vegetables over your delta smelt, which only have a life expentency of a year anyway. Water also replenishes itself. How about just slowing construction growth? Greed is the real cause of water supply shortages. Judge Wanger needs a long sleeved white jacket with snaps and straps, to replace his robe.

Wake UP People! wrote on Sep 1, 2007 10:36 AM:This is the beginning of tough times. We are in a horrid drought cycle and are still planting high water use plants and watering golf courses with drinnking water. Get with it and develop more recycled water delivery systems. That is the key.

Fasteddy wrote on Sep 1, 2007 11:13 AM:Quick! hand out more building permits to developers we need more traffic,overcrowded schools etc. and less water.

American Mike wrote on Sep 1, 2007 11:56 AM:Ed wrote: Easy, they do it all the time. With support from organizations such as the Sierra Club or the Center for Biological Diversity. This time, it's a minnow. Before it was a weed growing in the Imperial Dunes or human land use causing the decline in the Tortoise population. In both cases, biological studies determined that, one, the weed was so abundant that it likely never would be eradicated by public land use, and the other, that the Tortoises are in decline because of respiratory disease and are under attack by natural predators such as the Black Raven (which is also another endangered spices). In the case of the weed (or fish in this case), determination of it's status wasn't made until after millions of dollars of tax payer dollars were wasted on common sense observations, and secondly, the public was denied access to public land during that time. The trend is for those two primary environmental groups to sue the Federal or State Government agencies under the false pretense that adequate monitoring isn't taking place. We, the taxpayer’s foot the bill for several years on end, loose access rights, and must form counter organizations for public representation in court. The best outcome of any of these lawsuits so far has been States or Federal agencies end up mitigating land to satisfy the environmentalist complaint. In other words, the valley may get it's water, the fish will have a special breeding program stood up to protect their existence, and the California side of Lake Tahoe will become designated as Wilderness area where only a tick my exist without violating Federal Endangered Species acts. Keep an eye out from behind. If Environmentalist are attacking from the front, they have an alterior agenda that isn't perceivably in the open as of yet. This isn't some extremist rant, just look back through NC Times past articles concerning the closure of OHV areas, water rights use in the Pacific North West and the damage their efforts induce into the same eco system they say they are trying to protect. The California wildfires in Wilderness areas burn with such devastation because Wilderness designation does not allow Forrest service workers or firefighters to manage the forest to prevent wildfires, or even battle the fires in those areas, all they are legally allowed to do is to try for containment in the zones outside the wilderness areas. Next time your sucking smoke from a wildfire into your lungs, thank an environmentalist. The movement will continue, right to what comes out of your faucet. You want to read an extreamist point of view on all of this, wait for the follow up post.

frank wrote on Sep 1, 2007 12:28 PM:haha, Southern California sucks...good luck keeping your precious, sprawling green monocultures called lawns green now...seems the SUV capital will be reminded there are other parts of the state, where people actually care about/understand the fragility of our ecosystems. Keep the delta beautiful!

Anthony wrote on Sep 1, 2007 12:57 PM: Desalination is the solution to southern California's water crisis! We are facing a water crisis and we are next to the ocean with limitless water. All we need is a desalination plant. Why the plan is not pushing forward at light speed already. We need our desalination plant, NOW! At least it can guarantee we have life sustaining fresh water, when a real water supply disaster hits! Write to your representative to urge speedup of the desalination plan!

The future is now wrote on Sep 1, 2007 1:24 PM:I guess that we're soon going to be living in what California will be like in the future. I agree with those that say less lawns, and we should also be using recycled water to water those plants. I also wonder how any city can possibly support growth/more development under these conditions. Californians are creative and good at adapting to change, and I'm confident that we'll conserve our way out of this situation, given the time(no more new development for a while) to do so.

The ruling makes sense wrote on Sep 1, 2007 1:40 PM:Especially if it forces a reallocation of water from ag to people.

Energy makes the world go round wrote on Sep 1, 2007 3:21 PM:I think we are forgetting the tremendous amount of energy in converting an arid region like Southern California into an urban and rural oasis. Water, Housing, Transportation, everything we do to sustain ourselves draws energy. Want a desalinization plant? Fine, as much water as you can waste. But where's the power come from? Bicker about the drought danger as much as you want, as the fuel and power prices begin to skyrocket, the desert will return, like it or not. Life is precious, be it human or otherwise. Dont demonstrate your ignorance by marginalizing the importance of aquatic life just because being mindful of our world habitat is not the easiest, quickest methodology. There is a solution, but requires a collective effort. Amen, and God Bless America!

escondido resident wrote on Sep 1, 2007 5:05 PM:If making a big effort to conserve water would really improve the situation, then I would do it. Unfortunately, if we all conserve water and end up with a surplus of water then developers will just build more houses and use up the surplus.

RJ wrote on Sep 1, 2007 5:35 PM:And just how is the state of California supposed to retrofit established neighborhoods to supply recycled water for irrigation? "Toilet to tap" i.e. Fenton Business Center in Eastlake? I suppose it is feasible to retrofit but it would take many years and billions of dollars to implement statewide. Also, your arguments would be taken more seriously if you don’t resort to name calling. I am not ignorant simply because I disagree with your point of view on the importance of a single species of aquatic life.

Richard wrote on Sep 1, 2007 5:40 PM:I am an old senior who is an endangered specie. I am glad to see that a handful of briht eyed environmentalist believe that a smelts life is worth more than my life. Save a tree burn an environmentalist in your fireplace on the next cold day.

Think Before You Write... wrote on Sep 1, 2007 6:10 PM:California is the bread basket to the world. Has been for years. Today we see more and more fruit and vegetables being imported from South America and Australia. But their growing season is opposite ours. So, when it is winter here, it is summer there and that's how we get many of the produce year around, that even our parents could not. We have been spoled over the years and we expect to have everything we want, when we want it and without anyone saying we can't have something. Unless we shut the bread basket to the world off and devastate the worlds economies, we have to find a way to share what limited resources we have. To those of you out there, saying "forget the farmer and give it all to the homeowner," you are plain nuts. We need to start with limiting the growth that has become rampant of late. Not every person in the world is going to be able to live in Southern California. We need to get that through the heads of our leaders. They have to say, "enough, already," at some point. The sunbelt is large and some of these people are just going to have to settle elsewhere. Texas, Florida, etc. They can't all live here and the developers can not, or at least should not be allowed to, cover every square inch with asphalt and concrete. Do we give the smelt all the water? No, there has to be a middle ground for the smelt, and all the other creatures that depend on water...Including us.

Dennis A wrote on Sep 1, 2007 7:22 PM:I say frezze the fish, move them to the Nile or some other river delta, perhaps San Diego.If the Governor would just over this ruling, he would save him-self a lot of headachs, Gov's do out rule Judges.

jay wrote on Sep 1, 2007 8:32 PM:Do you guys really think that you don't waste 30 gallons of water a day and that if you tried, you couldn't possibly cut back in a way that wouldn't be painful? The handwriting is on the wall. Our water supply is precarious, but we treat it like we have an unlimited supply. Are you wasting water? It is sure easier to blame environmentalists than to blame yourself, isn't it? You're addicted to having what you want when you want it. Stop complaining and look at your water usage to see if you could cut back a little. You whiners are probably the same people who would rather bring down the power grid than turn up your AC 1 degree.

GFN wrote on Sep 1, 2007 9:18 PM:Amerricann Mikke, rrr you puling our chaain again? IFF you arrh at leest get speel chck.

GFN wrote on Sep 1, 2007 9:22 PM:Jay...you are right...stop the growth as the first step...then go to step two.

JA wrote on Sep 1, 2007 9:40 PM:Bush wants to curtail judges making laws here is a great example of a looney toon jurist, he can start with.

janet wrote on Sep 1, 2007 11:01 PM:This judge is enforcing the laws of the state. Bush wants to have judges make laws he likes but not the ones he doesn't. That's just like a lot of people discussing this issue. It is the law. You don't like it, but it is. I don't like a lot of laws, but I accept that they are the law, and often for the general good, not just for mine. I know you think it is weird, but learn conservation. That's different from environmentalism. It means don't waste stuff--you know, what this country was built on until recent times. Guess most of the people who remember the depression are dead or have forgotten.

Paul wrote on Sep 2, 2007 5:33 AM:Desalination plants are a good idea. One question, where is the electrical power going to come from to run the plants?

RJ wrote on Sep 2, 2007 5:42 AM:Once again, if you don't have a valid counterpoint you can just resort to name-calling or making fun of the others spellling. Frankly, I think American Mike raises some good points. And I don't think we can counterbalance the loss of 35% of our water supply by fixing my leaky toilet. Perhaps we should put the All American Canal lining project into overdrive before the environmentalists plant some evidence that will shut down the project. Ok, this is your queue to attack my grammar now...

janet wrote on Sep 2, 2007 9:35 AM:So you don't agree with the ruling. But are you going to conserve water? Or are you going to say that you don't agree with the ruling and make no effort? Right now, they are asking for 30 gallons a day. I agree 33% is a large cut and it means that you aren't going to be able to water your landscaping very much.

RJ wrote on Sep 2, 2007 3:27 PM:Of course everyone will conserve, the price of water is probably going to quadruple. The problem is; conservation alone will not be enough to make up for the shortfall. The state should have provided an alternate source of water years ago. Relying so heavily on a single source of water is very short sighted...

Retro-fit your own home wrote on Sep 3, 2007 2:07 PM:Every time Southern Californians are asked to conserve, whether it is electricity, water, or something just as precious, we do, and guess what happens, our utilities raise our prices. Every time. Now, faced with a real shortage - why don't we do our own retro-fitting of our gardens and lawns. Reclaim the water. And if we have gutters and downspouts, when it rains (a rarity for sure) lets feed that water into the same system. All it would take is a tank (above ground or below, and some PVS pipe. Backflow devices wherever needed, to isolate the potable water from the irrigation water, a small solar array to power the pump, and here we go. Now, the real rub comes when beaucracy doesn't like it. They will kick up a fuss. Why not require all new housing, whether homes, apts, condos, high-rises, etc, to have a dual water system. People have been wanting that for years but the inspectors will NOT allow it. Make it so !

Bryan wrote on Sep 3, 2007 9:40 PM:I cant believe i just read that a fishs life is equal to a humans life. That we can destroy 25 milion human lives to save a stupid fish. These liberals are killing this state.

To paul wrote on Sep 4, 2007 2:39 PM:NO, Desalination plants are a great idea. Im sure pumping water from carlsbad will take considerably less electrical power than pumping from sacramento!

anti-cali wrote on Sep 5, 2007 7:22 AM:Here is the deal! There is no future for this state of california considering the surplus human population that reside here. Well at least most of them seem to have been walking upright for a few decades now. There will eventually be no water anyway in this state. This is a desert climate state and any agriculture that is conducted here should take that into consideration. This has nothing to do with a fish. It is punishment for california, southern california especially, for wasting water for so many decades. Why do you think Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona cut us off by 2/3'rds a few years ago from sucking from the Colorado River. Californians will never learn. Well anyway, Californian should be proud of one thing, it will soon become the first "Self Destructing" State!

Liquid wrote on Sep 5, 2007 11:00 PM:I've been trying to find how water is used around here. According to the most recent data (2003) from the state Department of Water Resources, 72% of water use in San Diego County, and 54% of water use in Riverside County is for homes and apartments, with the bulk of the water being used for landscaping. People have to get real -- there is no Constitutional right to a lush green lawn in a desert. As far as desalination plants go, do the advocates of that technology recognize that the only way to provide the massive amounts of power needed would be to build more nuclear plants? California has had a difficult time keeping up with the additional 1600 megawatts of new power required every year just because of population increases, building conventional power plants.