Great Water News Possibly

There is a legal firm known as Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) who has been working very hard to help our farmers and all the citizens of California fight the government against the obnoxious man-made drought. They were in court recently and there's no ruling yet, but there may be some good news coming down with this ruling. If not (and if so), this may go to the Federal Court of Appeals and ultimately to the SCOTUS.

Can you imagine that the law would protect a fish over 35 million people? Neither could the PLF! Read this e-mail I've received.

Judge cites “catastrophic effects” of feds’ water cutbacks.

Dear Rosemary,

Last week, a federal court in Fresno heard arguments on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Delta smelt “biological opinion”—the fish-before-people policy that has forced crippling water cutbacks for farms and communities in the Central Valley, along with rate hikes and rationing for Southern California water users.

PLF attorney Brandon Middleton—representing hard-hit farmers—argued PLF’s constitutionally based case against the water cutoffs, and other issues were addressed by other attorneys, representing other water users.

The good news is that Judge Oliver Wanger showed that he understands the devastating impact of the feds’ policies. As The Fresno Bee reported , the judge appears to already have concluded that the smelt plan has hurt the environment. He said it has caused dust to rise from dry fields, possibly reducing air quality. And increased ground-water pumping has caused land to sink, he said.

“‘How could this not affect the human environment?’ Wanger asked ... of the ... biological opinion. ‘It has had catastrophic effects.’”

Consequently, the judge declared—in a tentative ruling not yet finalized—that the feds failed to comply with federal law requiring environmental impact analysis when major federal actions affect the environment.

Meanwhile, PLF’s argument—that the smelt regulations are unconstitutional, because the fish exists only in California and plays no role in commerce—was rejected by the judge. We’re advancing fundamental constitutional principles here, issues that ultimately may have to be adjudicated by a federal appellate court—and possibly by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, there’s no question that, given the judge’s recognition of the “catastrophic” impacts of the water cutbacks, The Fresno Bee was correct in calling the overall hearing “encouraging ... for farmers.”

Bravo!

I can teach you supply and demand economics in a few sentences.

1. There are 10 apples and 1 person wants to buy an apply. It is very cheap.
2. There is 1 apple and 10 people want to buy an apple. The price is high.
3. There are 5 apples and 5 people want to buy an apple. This is equilibrium. This is what the actual cost of the should be. (Hey, I'm trying to keep it simply. I know this is not exactly true, but it's true enough.)

What the government has done is to leave these farms product-less. Therefore we have to get our apples somewhere else. (Pretend the apples are something you actually want if you don't like apples, okay? haha) What does this cause? INFLATION! How?

1. There are no apples and 10 people want apples.
2. The price to buy an apple is then artificially higher.

Once prices rise, they seldom come back down. Does anyone remember when you could get a gallon of gas for 25 cents? Unbelievable? No. I remember, and I'm not that old!

I had better leave the rest of this economics lesson to someone who is better suited to answer these questions. Maybe BizzyBlog would be able to simplify it for you and me. haha. Have a wonderful weekend and a Happy Columbus Day!