Commerce orders NOAA to prioritize water for firefighting over endangered species

[ocean size]

Couple days old, so sorry if it has been posted already. Water for firefighting isn't limited in anyway. But it is a good excuse to shunt it away from salmon.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross ordered the National Marine Fisheries Service to "facilitate access to the water" needed to fight ongoing wildfires, rather than continue to provide some of it for protecting endangered species, such as Chinook salmon.

Why it matters: The policy directive follows tweets President Trump sent that were met with confusion by California officials, including firefighters, who said the state has more than enough water to combat the blazes.

The directive prioritizes firefighting needs above water allocation requirements under the Endangered Species Act, and other agreements established with the state of California and other federal agencies.

• "American lives and property are at stake and swift action is needed," Ross said in a statement.

The big picture: The directive also implies that NOAA, which oversees NMFS, is rethinking its role in managing California's water to preserve endangered marine species, such as the Delta smelt and winter-run Chinook salmon.

• California's State Water Resources Control Board voted in July to use more of the state's water allocations for preserving fish populations — meaning farmers would get less than they were receiving. Republican state and federal lawmakers have opposed this plan.

California is besieged by more than a dozen large wildfires, including the state's largest on record, which is equivalent to the size of Los Angeles, which is the sixth-largest city in the U.S.

The water that NOAA helps manage is not firefighters' main resource for containing these blazes.

Instead, they rely on building physical barriers, known as fire lines, to slow or stop fires from spreading. They also use fire retardants delivered from the air from large cargo planes and water drops that tap into lake and reservoir supplies. Though the state is in the midst of a drought, lake and reservoir levels are near average for this time of year.

The Commerce Department's new directive states in part: "Public safety is the first priority. Consistent with the emergency consultation provisions under the ESA, Federal agencies may use any water as necessary to protect life and property in the affected areas. Based on this directive, NOAA will facilitate the use of water for this emergency. Going forward, the Department and NOAA are committed to finding new solutions to address threatened and endangered species in the context of the challenging water management situation in California."

The Trump administration is pursuing separate actions through the Interior Department and Congress to enact broad changes to the Endangered Species Act.

Environmental groups view the new policy as a way to use the fires to benefit agricultural interests that are seeking more water for irrigation, and limit the reach of the Endangered Species Act.

“Secretary Ross’s directive is nothing more than a smokescreen designed to weaken these protections," said Kate Poole, water program director for the NRDC, in a statement.

https://www.axios.com/commerce-secr...es--e7895907-0144-4ca3-9e9a-7cee2329ea59.html

This isn't how that works:

Major reservoirs are near the worst fire zones; the Carr fire is near Lake Shasta and Whiskeytown Lake and the Mendocino Complex fire is near Clear Lake. All are at or near their historical levels.

“There have been no issues getting water from them,” Scott McLean, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire, told me

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-trump-fires-20180806-story.html

 

[lifelessheap]

Couple days old, so sorry if it has been posted already. Water for firefighting isn't limited in anyway. But it is a good excuse to shunt it away from salmon.


https://www.axios.com/commerce-secr...es--e7895907-0144-4ca3-9e9a-7cee2329ea59.html

This isn't how that works:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-trump-fires-20180806-story.html

Clear Lake smells rotten, but it is huge and full of water. I just hope the planes and helicopters scoop up meth heads and dump them on the fire.

 

[Phr3121]

But it is a good excuse to shunt it away from salmon.

All humans have been evacuated. If they choose to stay and take their chances it is on them. Let the salmon keep their water. This happens every year in California. The fire will eventually burn itself out. I would focus more on rescuing wildlife. What is so special about humans? They usually start these fires anyway. The one species on the planet that has managed to fuck the planet up. So much for a higher IQ and being at the top of the food chain.

Almost twice the number of Americans died in the American Civil War than in WWII. Just think about that for a moment. Total = 750,000 men. Total dead in 2017 California wildfire = 43.

Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran suicide rate per day in the U.S. = 23.

 

[Madmick]

All humans have been evacuated. If they choose to stay and take their chances it is on them. Let the salmon keep their water. This happens every year in California. The fire will eventually burn itself out. I would focus more on rescuing wildlife. What is so special about humans? They usually start these fires anyway. The one species on the planet that has managed to fuck the planet up. So much for a higher IQ and being at the top of the food chain.

Almost twice the number of Americans died in the American Civil War than in WWII. Just think about that for a moment. Total = 750,000 men. Total dead in 2017 California wildfire = 43.

Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran suicide rate per day in the U.S. = 23.

You have lost the forest for the trees with such little care paid to humans. This is nonsense.

The reason we want to more responsibly address the issue of water usage and fish populations by reforming our current unsustainable policies is because of what it will do to the future quality of life of our own progeny. You're talking like the salmon are more important than the people. I don't care about salmon. I care about full bellies, and healthy ecosystems. I care about the quality of life of species that care about quality of life. Salmon are essential to that, and so I care about being a steward of their health.

If, for example, when all the salmon died, there would immediately be another fish that materialized into existence that took their place in the ecosystem, and fed us, but wasn't salmon, do you think I would hesitate to fish the salmon to extinction? Of course not. Nature will eventually kill them all without my help. Then replace it with something else. Their posterity isn't my priority. My affect on their population as it pertains to me is.

The reason this is so freaking stupid is-- as the TS said-- this has nothing to do with firefighting water. Trump is exploiting a real tragedy and hazard to wag the dog with his myopic, and ultimately self-destructive environmental policy ambitions.

 

[ocean size]

You have lost the forest for the trees with such little care paid to humans. This is nonsense.

The reason we want to more responsibly address the issue of water usage and fish populations by reforming our current unsustainable policies is because of what it will do to the future quality of life of our own progeny. You're talking like the salmon are more important than the people. I don't care about salmon. I care about full bellies, and healthy ecosystems. I care about the quality of life of species that care about quality of life. Salmon are essential to that, and so I care about being a steward of their health.

If, for example, when all the salmon died, there would immediately be another fish that materialized into existence that took their place in the ecosystem, and fed us, but wasn't salmon, do you think I would hesitate to fish the salmon to extinction? Of course not. Nature will eventually kill them all without my help. Then replace it with something else. Their posterity isn't my priority. My affect on their population as it pertains to me is.

The reason this is so freaking stupid is-- as the TS said-- this has nothing to do with firefighting water. Trump is exploiting a real tragedy and hazard to wag the dog with his myopic, and ultimately self-destructive environmental policy ambitions.

Was dude bring satirical? Seems like it was too subtle for sherdog standarfs

 

[Ripskater]

Humans come before fish. So protect homes if you can. But some controlled burning is maybe good.

 

[Madmick]

Was dude bring satirical? Seems like it was too subtle for sherdog standarfs

The satirical tone is thick, and I'm familiar with his other postings on the topic, but the core of the message isn't clear, here.

Man-made disasters and conflicts are more deadly to us than natural disasters, and we are stupid if we don't recognize that. I caught that. The part that doesn't make sense to me is "this happens every year in California" within the context of replying to your post about how this a thinly veiled excuse to change unrelated fish vs. ag policy on water.

The fire is being fought with water regardless of this policy, the water is a nominal amount within the scope of our problems, and it returns to the atmosphere following application in mostly wild areas, anyway. This is intermingled with facts such as us starting most of the fires, screwing the planet up, and fires burning themselves out. More directly, @Phr3121 opposes either plan: Trump's or Brown's.

So what's the point? Yes, no matter what we do, the issue is that there are too many of us. We can talk about the inefficiency of water usage, and a lack of preparation and brush clearance to deter out-of-control wildfires, but ultimately that is the problem, so the satirical notion of letting us burn to save the fish doesn't make sense because it doesn't matter if we do or we don't. The fire and the fish aren't related problems, even if both are man-made problems of concern, so why are they being satirically opposed to one another parallel to the fate of men and fish being satirically opposed?

1. Man needs the water. Fish needs the water. Man needs fish. Man needs to fight fire.
   
2. Man fights fire with water. Man would be better to prevent fire without water. Less water still means more fire.
3. Less water, less fish, more fire, more dead men. Man kills himself when he needs too much water.
4. Fire is meaningless without Man. Fish is meaningless without Man. Water is meaningless without Man. Nature is meaningless without Man.
   
5. Man must be rescued.
6. Nature will not rescue Man. Man must rescue Nature.
7. Therein, Man will rescue himself.
   
8. Nature will kill Man. Man must control Nature.
   
9. Rescue of Nature and Control of Nature are not opposed. Both are necessary.

 

[ocean size]

Humans come before fish. So protect homes if you can. But some controlled burning is maybe good.

The thing is rip, there is no shortage of water for hoses or for dumping. The reservoirs are as full as ever. Taking any water from salmon won't help with fire fighting at all. The people fighting the fire say this, so the only reasons for this move are to use this water for something else, or that they just want to go along with the theme of the POTUS's tweet.

 

[Ripskater]

The thing is rip, there is no shortage of water for hoses or for dumping. The reservoirs are as full as ever. Taking any water from salmon won't help with fire fighting at all. The people fighting the fire say this, so the only reasons for this move are to use this water for something else, or that they just want to go along with the theme of the POTUS's tweet.

I'm not getting you. Can you clarify? Sorry man.

 

[jamel]

Damn... Yall aint playing when you say "all Lives Matter" huh?

The fucking fish?

 

[aunshi189]

The satirical tone is thick, and I'm familiar with his other postings on the topic, but the core of the message isn't clear, here.

Man-made disasters and conflicts are more deadly to us than natural disasters, and we are stupid if we don't recognize that. I caught that. The part that doesn't make sense to me is "this happens every year in California" within the context of replying to your post about how this a thinly veiled excuse to change unrelated fish vs. ag policy on water.

The fire is being fought with water regardless of this policy, the water is a nominal amount within the scope of our problems, and it returns to the atmosphere following application in mostly wild areas, anyway. This is intermingled with facts such as us starting most of the fires, screwing the planet up, and fires burning themselves out. More directly, @Phr3121 opposes either plan: Trump's or Brown's.

So what's the point? Yes, no matter what we do, the issue is that there are too many of us. We can talk about the inefficiency of water usage, and a lack of preparation and brush clearance to deter out-of-control wildfires, but ultimately that is the problem, so the satirical notion of letting us burn to save the fish doesn't make sense because it doesn't matter if we do or we don't. The fire and the fish aren't related problems, even if both are man-made problems of concern, so why are they being satirically opposed to one another parallel to the fate of men and fish being satirically opposed?

1. Man needs the water. Fish needs the water. Man needs fish. Man needs to fight fire.
   
2. Man fights fire with water. Man would be better to prevent fire without water. Less water still means more fire.
3. Less water, less fish, more fire, more dead men. Man kills himself when he needs too much water.
4. Fire is meaningless without Man. Fish is meaningless without Man. Water is meaningless without Man. Nature is meaningless without Man.
   
5. Man must be rescued.
6. Nature will not rescue Man. Man must rescue Nature.
7. Therein, Man will rescue himself.
   
8. Nature will kill Man. Man must control Nature.
   
9. Rescue of Nature and Control of Nature are not opposed. Both are necessary.

*Fewer fish.

 

[*Z*]

This is complete bullshit. This is nothing more than what republicans have always done in Ca. They are trying to take the delta water and send it down to the fucking desert in So Cal to the almond farmers. Why on earth would be take a limited resource and use it to line the pockets of the agriculture industry? Are we going to starve to death without almonds? Which probably 80% are being exported to China anyway. This has nothing to do with fires, this is a typical republican money grab. We have plenty of water right now. There has never been a time when we didn't have enough water to fight fires.

 

[ocean size]

I'm not getting you. Can you clarify? Sorry man.

There is no shortage of water. The fires are being fought without limitation due to water availability.

Any reallocation of water away from endangered species has ulterior motives

 

[xcvbn]

This is an apparant effort to ramp up the California water tug of war. The stage for an outright water war is being set as everyone announces their role in the matter.

Trump's role being the big bad fed- but first he has to find a means for justification -wildfires- even though the logic is deeply flawed behind the notion that saving water for an endangered species is affecting CA's containment of wildfires- it's 100% a fabrication. No authority or policy is in place telling Cal Fire that they can't use river, stream, or lake water to fight fires.

Funnily enough, as the OP article points out, water isn't even the primary source for fighting these fires. It's counter burning and fire retardant dropped from AC130s and helicopters.

 

[Phr3121]

• Man must be rescued.

• Therein, Man will rescue himself.

That sounds about right, but man is too stupid to rescue himself. Americans will certainly rescue themselves but the same cannot be said for most (less developed) countries in the world. In another 100 years or less, oil, water, and food will become primary resources in the world. Americans will never run short of any of the three and Americans don't really care if other countries do. Just look at countries in Africa. There the issue has already started, but it does not make the news here in the U.S.

Also, the Pacific ocean sits off the California West coast. Nice large source of water that can be flown to a fire site by a 747 in a short time. People known about the dangers of fires and earthquakes and still choose to live in California.

 

[Rod1]

What i dont understand, is why so many forest fires over there.

Im thinking that at this point the US should just hire some goat herders to take care of the grass.