There has been an ongoing debate whether or not Californians should pursue the San Joaquin River Restoration Project. The project itself is an effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of Merced River. I believe Bill McEwen’s, author of the “River plan to fishy for my taste buds” article, experience prove him to be the better expert because he’s a veteran journalist who speaks for people in many of his published works and also works for a democrat which makes him more trustworthy on his environmental points. The article was published on Fresno city’s “Fresno Bee” newspaper. People who live in this city seek for a change to be provided with more water. I believe the San Joaquin Restoration Project is …show more content…
According to the article, “River plan too fishy for my taste buds” Tim Stearns says, “We have a powerful economic engine in regard to food supply that is appropriate to our region.” along with “We need more efforts to capture water - not to divert it.” That being said, the director of the Lyles Center of Innovation and Entrepreneurship agrees that this project will be unsuccessful. The project will reroute the water instead of restoring it. Another example, numerous studies prove this project will fail. In the article, it states that “Congress now will spend $800 million in the first go-around to put thousands of Valley people out of work and to force an overdraft of our ground aquifer by water-thirsty farmers.” The water plan will cause harm to the economy. It would put people out of work instead of helping them making it more difficult for them to earn money. Lastly, many farmers and people will be affected by the loss of water. For example, the article, “River plan too fishy for my taste buds” states, “And it’s coming at a time when water shortages already are killing the Valley’s west side, farm based economy.” The river project will take up most of the water that people especially farmers are using it as a way of life. It’s going to ruin their economies and …show more content…
The water can easily be diverted. It will lead to problems in the future. In Weintraub’s article, “River restoration project offers a sprinkling of hope” states, “Much of it (water) will simply disappear into the ground.” That being said, the author also had his doubts of this successfully working. The possibility of water not filling up the empty landscape is very high. The water instead of flowing into canals may sink into the dry ground. How would you feel if you spent your money on a project that will fail terribly when you thought it will hopefully work? Although they’ve had experience on manually diverting the San Joaquin River into a series of channels and canals, the project will lead to future problems and in the end all may not become successful. It would cost millions and an unstable