Posted on 03/13/2014 10:44:05 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - As California faces a historic drought, a U.S. appeals court on Thursday sided with federal wildlife regulators who had recommended that the state reduce exports of water from north to south California in order to protect a finger-sized fish, the threatened Delta smelt.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against growers and California water districts in the case and said a lower court had erred in describing the regulators' determination as arbitrary and capricious.
Reaction from growers was swift. In a blog post, Damien Schiff, an attorney for growers, said the ruling "is terribly disappointing and bodes ill for farmers, farm laborers and millions of other Californians dependent on a reliable water supply."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
said a Judge..
--
"We recognize the enormous practical implications of this decision," 9th Circuit Judge Jay Bybee wrote. "But the consequences were prescribed when Congress determined that 'these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.'"Smelt this one comin'.
Smelt like the fix was in!
and what is causing the drought?
Something smelts about this!
WHAT THIS COUNTRY NEEDS IS A GOOD FIVE CENT FISH ZOO!
no surprise here... it is after all the 9th Circus
9th Circuit always gets overturned by Supremes. I hope the farmers are appealing.
Note:
This fish isn’t a native to California.
This fish has absolutely NO COMMERCIAL value. Not even other fish feed on it.
This whole deal over the Delta Smelt has been a made-up deal from the very first day.
This sounds fishy.................
If smelt don’t pay taxes or add to society, where is their authority to stop water to humans.
Who cares what they look like?..........................8^)
California’s wealth is from agriculture, mostly in the central valley.
The only reason I can think of for why the socialist in Sacramento are doing this is because for the most part, the central valley is conservative.
One possible reason is to bankrupt the existing farmers and then have their friends buy the property at a low price and then a miracle will happen.
The smelt will no longer need protection and the water will flow again.
Meanwhile California sinks further into debt.
sounds like it’s time for an old fashion Smelt fry
What post-FDR era, institutionally indoctrinated judges probably don’t do in these cases is the following. They probably don’t attempt to test if the unconstitutionally big federal government has the constitutional authority to do what it is doing.
More specifically, the federal government has exclusive legislative control only over property that it has purchased under the terms of the 5th Amendment and Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I, let’s include the mail roads of Clause 7 too.
That said, if the feds “bought” property from a state, was the property actually purchased with the consent of the state’s legislature as required by Clause 17, or did state lawmakers, who are as probably as constitutionally clueless as the voters who elected them, simply not get involved if the feds did a constitutionally indefensible land grab?
Next, even if the feds legitimately own the land in question, who is calling the shots for a particular issue, the delta smelt in this case? Is it Congress who has sole control over federal regulatory / legislative powers evidenced by the Constitution’s Sections 1-3 of Article I, or was it unelected bureaucrats who are constitutionally toothless even though most people and activist judges probably don’t know it?
Finally, why don’t citizens save themselves a bunch of PC headaches from socialist attacks on our constitutional republic, this issue concerning endangered species, and work with their state lawmakers under 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty to clone such species?
Insights welcome.
You are talking about land and property and the issue is water.
The feds never made claims to water, instead leaving that to the states. But SCOTUS established the Federal and Indian Lands Water Rights(Winters Doctrine) in 1908. That was re-interpreted later in the 20th century so that it applies to more than indian reservations and Indian's treaty rights(farming and fishing).
So all federal land and designations have a reserved water right that will eventually come in conflict with Prior Appropriation water rights.
And often times these reserved waters rights are merely minimum flows, or what minimum flow is required for the delta smelt. There is always going be disagreement and this is how the politics of the issue plays out. First off there is the dis-agreement on minimum flow. Some say there doesn't need to be a minimum flow while others say there has to be a minimum flow, though this group will have wide disagreement as to what the minimum flow should be.
So when they sit down at the table to negotiate or go into court to determine what the minimum flow need to be, those who said there doesn't need to be a minimum flow don't get a seat at the proceedings.
Its a very complicated subject, far beyond the Free Republic chat room, and best left to the judges, who established the water right in the first place.
Its good to have some understanding of Riparian, Prior Appropriation, and Reserved Water Rights
“9th Circuit always gets overturned by Supremes. I hope the farmers are appealing.”
Largely true, but we are hoping that the SCOTUS stands with the 9th on the 2A.
Also, while I agree that rational people would side with the farmers, you have to lay the blame on the Congress ultimately for the “environmental protective” laws they have promulgated. The judge simply reaffirmed what the law mandated. Remember that when you go and vote.
So what you are saying is the delta smelt has more standing than human beings?
Oh, I get it now. We just need to have open season on judges first than liberals. Then we will see who has standing.
First in time, first in right.
So in a drought year, the junior right holder won't get his water, but the senior right holder will get his water. And then to top that off, the minimum flow for the smelt is deducted off the top.
This is no different from the Klamath river 15 years ago which was a popular blood boiling subject at Free Republic. In that case the refuge had a water right, the suckers in the lake had a water right, and the tribe, who had a treaty right to fish, had a water right.
While I side with the farmers on this issue, I do question your two statements.
"Not even other fish feed on it." Why, is it toxic? "Big fish eat little fish" tends to apply all over the world.
Smelts are a food source for salmon and lake trout.
Smelt roe is bright orange in color, and is often used to garnish sushi.
They were also a winter meal. They were gutted, heads and tails removed, rinsed in cold water then dipped in flour mixed with salt and pepper and fried in butter. Served with boiled potatoes and pickled beets, they were an addition to winter fare.
Really! I like my smelt sautéed in garlic butter. And some times I might sprinkle in some grasshopper legs or ground up tree bark to make the smelt crunchier
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.