California should not spend the money for the San Joaquin Restoration Project. Bill McEwen’s article, River Plan Too Fishy for my Taste Buds, clearly states his opinion on the controversial topic of the San Joaquin Restoration Project. The newspaper, Fresno Bee, published this article on March 26 in 2009 in Fresno, California when congress officially approved of the San Joaquin project. Due to the fact that farms surround Fresno, the people who live there consist mostly of farmers, and the majority of them do not agree with the river project. Bill McEwen, a local Fresno, proves as a credible source because he worked as a writer at The Fresno Bee for 35 years. I believe the river restoration project might head towards a disadvantageous direction …show more content…
“The reality is, our federal and state governments will spend hundreds of millions – if not billions – of dollars in coming years on a program that will yield a salmon exhibit instead of a sustainable fishery” (1). This quote displays pathos because the government is funding large amounts of money towards this risky project that could end up as a failure, yet they could finance projects with a higher chance of success. They are taking a chance with that money and the people would lose a fair deal of benefits that the money could have been used for if the plan fails. The government is trying to look like they are enivironmentally friendly and “good” people, but in reality they do not even know for sure this plan will succeed, but they gamble with their chances anyways and hope for a favorable outcome which is foolish because the victims that will have to suffer their failures will not be them, but the common middle to lower class people. In this case of the river project, they are creating a thriving wild salmon in the revitalized San Joaquin river façade when they could have funded the money to create an actual sustainable fishery that has a higher success rate with the same results of bringing back the salmon industry. Another pathos quote that portrays the river project as a flawed idea is seen here, “And it’s coming at a time when water shortages already are killing the Valley’s westside, farm-based economy... won’t be celebrating later” (2). This section evokes feelings of fear in the reader because even though the approval of the project seems to be a good idea by helping the environment and fish, eventually the plan will go awry and when that happens all the quantites of efforts, money, and water will be gone. Additionally to the consequences of the river plan