Smelt Supreme Court ruling goes against farmers

[alp227]

Source: SF Chron

(10-31) 15:43 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal today by Central California farmers who claimed the federal government lacks constitutional authority to protect the imperiled delta smelt by limiting north-to-south water shipments.

Three San Joaquin Valley growers challenged the government's use of the Endangered Species Act to protect a fish that exists only in California and has no commercial value.

But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in March that the law is constitutional because preserving rare wildlife from extinction is a form of economic regulation that is part of Congress' constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

Courts around the nation have agreed that "the protection of threatened or endangered species implicates economic concerns," even for species found only in one state, the three-judge panel said. The Supreme Court denied review today without comment.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/31/BA6I1LOJ2K.DTL

[XemaSab]

1. This is great news!

:D

[Le Taz Hot]

4. Sorry, I disagree.

I predict this will cause more job loss in an area with some of the nation's highest unemployment rates. Anytime the Valley is denied water THAT WE PAY FOR, it results in massive job loss. And for those who advocate for undocumented workers? THEY will be the ones hardest hit.

[hunter]

7. We could put plenty of people to work restoring wetlands...

... building high speed railroads and renewable energy systems, growing high value, low water use crops with well paid labor, etc.

Growing low value crops using heavily subsidized water, toxic agricultural chemicals, and abusive labor practices is immoral and stupid.

The corrupt farmer welfare queens of California's Central Valley need to pull their own weight and adapt to modern civilized society. Instead they've been living as Lords and Ladies of a feudal system heavily subsidized by state and federal tax dollars.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. What is the value of wetlands?

Economically at least. I understand totally for environmental reason but the SJ valley was a big argicultural producer. Even "low value" is better than "no value." Wetlands are environmentally valuable but they don't feed people or produce jobs that pay for themselves, produce tax revenue, permit savings and allow for disposable income.

[The Second Stone]

11. The local salmon and other commercial fish

spawn in the wetlands.

[hunter]

12. Our twisted values got us into this mess.

Low value is not better than no value.

When you do the math, "low value" is a highly negative value. The natural environment deteriorates to the point where it is actually harmful to human life. "No value" wildlands have a positive value stabilizing soils, dispersing flood waters, providing recreational opportunities, etc.

Take one example, water poisoned by agricultural chemicals used on low value subsidized crops and runoff from factory meat and dairy operations...

There are places all over the USA where the drinking water is actually poisonous and harmful to humans. There are children suffering damage to their body and minds because their parents are treated as disposable workers and the environments they live in are toxic.

Sure, it's better than starving to work in an unsafe coal mine or live in a poisonous agricultural labor camp, but it's not an either/or situation. We can simultaneously have safe jobs AND a healthy environment if we stop accepting the bullshit economic "values" of the 1%.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. "There are places all over the USA where the drinking water is actually poisonous"

OK, but that's not this place and farming actually has a high-value as food is a necessity.

[hunter]

14. It is that place. Take some random drives around the Central Valley and see what you find.

And I just can't see how cows fed antibiotics and raised on great mountains of shit, or cotton grown in a stew of toxic chemicals, can be a "necessity."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. And what has been done to replace the lost production?

Nothing?

That means as production decreases those who are the most vulnerable are left without.

[hunter]

16. A hostage situation.

We'd better give those one percenters what they demand.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. Oh good grief

That's just a non-sensical dodge.

That land was producing food. Yes, it would be awesome if the cows were anti-biotic free but anti-biotics are better than disease ridden cows. And those cows were feeding people. The 1% didn't stop producing without allowing for alternative production. That production was money to them. Now there is no money because there is no production, which BTW means no food.

[hunter]

18. So people will go hungry without cheap dairy products and low quality bulk beef?

Really?

People will be starving if they can't get those 99 cent nacho beefy burritos and chili-cheese beef frankfurters? I've always heard a diet of those things can kill you.

It's bad enough that antibiotic use in factory farms is one reason antibiotics don't work any more.

Whatever the ads say on TV, California's Central Valley shit-mountain cows are not happy cows, and milk is not a necessary part of a healthy diet.

If this business cannot succeed with sound environmental regulation and without subsidized water, then say good-bye and good riddance. The long term health of our environment is more important than cheap milk and beef products of questionable nutritional value.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. If demand styas level or goes up as supply declines, prices rise

That's not me saying it, that's 10,000 years of history.

And what's with the arrogance I see on DU that if food isn't coming from the local health food co-op it should just be tossed into the sea?

BTW - how many green initiatives are subsidized in one aspect or another? I don't think this is the hill you want to fight on. Plenty of GOPers would love to use your argument to kill wind and solar projects.

[hunter]

22. I'm not fond of many wind or solar projects either,

most especially those on fragile undeveloped desert.

[XemaSab]

23. Saline fields in the valley

are a much better place. :)

[KamaAina]

25. Cattle ranchers routinely use antibiotics to promote weight gain

only rarely to actually fight disease.

[Le Taz Hot]

9. Nice broad stroke you just used there.

And wholely non-applicable to 99% of the people who live and work here. You are so grossly misinformed that all I can do is chant for your enjlightenment and hope you put something more positive out into the cosmos than to wish others severe hardship for the actions of a few. Shame on you! :thumbsdown: and <flush>

[hunter]

10. The serfs always suffer first, and most.

That's why modern civilization has abandoned feudalism.

I have nothing nice to say about San Joaquin Valley politics.

Some of the fattest most regressive Republican turds in the nation are financed by wealthy farm interests, heavily subsidized by our tax dollars.

They stand directly in the way of a generous welfare system and public works projects that would end the suffering of those who now toil for them.

Flush 'em.

[Ter]

20. Anything to give the feds more power over the people and states

:eyes:

[jberryhill]

2. A New Wind Was Blowing After Court Dealt Smelt.

[msanthrope]

3. They who Denied Cert Supplied Smelt?

It's early....I need caffeine.

[jberryhill]

5. :-{

[XemaSab]

24. He Who Smelt It, Dealt It?

:shrug:

[Gormy Cuss]

6. "...has no commercial value." is a stupid argument against protection. n/t

[hunter]

19. We don't protect the unemployed for the same reason.

After a few months the unemployed get stale and have no commercial value.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. yeah it is. frankly most animals dont. doesnt mean they shouldnt be protected