River Plan Too Fishy For My Taste Judas Analysis

In the article, “River Plan Too Fishy for My Taste Buds,” written by Bill McEwen, he express his expectations and concerns toward the river restoration plan on the San Joaquin River. You might wonder how long ago was this? McEwen wrote these concerns in 2009! It has been approximately six years since these articles were published. Now we are able to analyze the results of the river restoration program and how it affected the people and animals involved with it. We can evaluate if the river conditions were unsuitable for the salmon to thrive as previously believed. The river restoration program can also be studied to see if it is boondoggle. In addition, are the farmers greedy when it comes to the San Joaquin River? After the river restoration, the San Joaquin River is fit for the lives of salmon. Bill McEwen stated in his article that the salmon would be unfit to live in the San Joaquin due to the oceanic conditions and the environmental mess that’s the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta. McEwen believed that the salmon were going to be unadapted to the river which would cause their population to once again decline. “ U.S. Bureau of Reclamation fish biologist Don Portz told the newspaper. "We know a lot more about where the fish
are in the river and what they need to survive in this river"’(Press-telegram). This quote from a recent article states that the salmon will be able to survive in the river due to scientific studies. “No one even knows whether salmon can even survive in the lower San Joaquin…” (McEwen). McEwen expresses that there is no knowledge that the salmon can sustain life in the lower part of the river. However, Monty Schmitt stated that 40% of juvenile released salmon successfully migrated, which was a comparable survival rate to the salmon in the Sacramento River, and this releases essential information for the long term goal of restoring salmon to the San Joaquin River. By juxtaposing these two articles, it can be seen that McEwen’s concern can be put to rest because they have already successfully had juvenile salmon migrate which revealed information on the salmon’s survival. Ultimately, the San Joaquin River is sustainable for the salmon which they can once again call home. The effort that has been put into the restoration of the river is worth it and it’s not boondoggle. “...including Valley agriculture supporters such as Jim Costa of Fresno and Dennis Cardoza of Merced - would support this boondoggle” (McEwen). In this quote, the author directly indicates that the restoration program is a boondoggle, or activity that is wasteful and pointless but appears to have value. “The main work to restore the San Joaquin River and the recreational industry expansion resulting from the river restoration will generate at least 11,392 jobs in the San Joaquin Valley. In a region suffering from chronic unemployment...” (Shawn Kantor). In this quote, Kantor states that the river restoration is beneficial economically by creating more jobs in an area where employment is scarce. According to the Friant Water Users Authority, the environment and many people such as family farms, federal, State and local governments, and millions of Californians benefit from a restored San Joaquin River. The river is more useful to many people reinstituted than dried up. The endeavor of the river restoration program is worth it and it’s anything but a waste of time. The farmers don’t have an intense and selfish desire towards the San Joaquin River. “If the farmers weren’t so greedy when it came to the river…” (McEwen). In this quote from the article, the writer describes the farmers as having a selfish intention regarding the river. “Kole Upton, a member of the Chowchilla Water District board who grows wheat, cotton, almonds and other crops, said reviving the 60 miles of river that have gone dry will deplete about 300,000 acres of farmland” (Press-Telegram). Upton in this article states that restoring the river will bring a huge loss to them of their farmland. ‘"If society values a few salmon over that much agriculture, I guess that's what we have to live with," he says”(Press-Telegram). This little part from the article states that the farmers are taking an agricultural sacrifice for society. In other words, the farmers are anything but greedy or selfish when it comes to the river. In conclusion, the analyzed results of the river restoration project these six years contradict many of McEwen’s points of why the program was a bad idea.
The progress that supports this include salmon successfully living in the San Joaquin river counters McEwen’s belief that salmons will be unable to survive in the revitalized river. The idea that the plan is a boondoggle has also been rejected since it clearly benefited many people. Furthermore, recent results of the restoration program display how the farmers were not greedy because they gave up their water and farmland for the recovery of the San Joaquin river. These few points depict the inaccuracy of McEwen’s expectations of the project and show how the San Joaquin is developing so
far.