The beautiful San Joaquin Valley in California has some of the richest farmland in the nation.  It became an oasis during the Great Depression and with dams and other irrigation projects, it has produced grapes, almonds, cotton, lettuce and those picking the produce could prosper.

The migrant farmers were as diverse as the produce they picked.  They could develop a middle class lifestyle with hard work and with little education, few belongings, and minimal ability to speak English.  They were from Portugal, Armenia, Italy, the Basque region of Spain, El Salvador, Vietnam and India, just as the different individuals who migrated to there during the great depression.

California has an incredible water storage and transportation system, but this area is being transformed into a modern day dust bowl.  Some claim that California is suffering the 3rd year of drought.  But the state’s Department of Water Resources indicates that California’s reservoirs have received 80% of the normal water.

Precipitation in the northern Sierras has been 95% of its yearly average.  Which begs the question:  why are hundreds of thousands of acres of the richest farmland in the country fallow?  The 1973 Endangered Species Act.  Once again Murphy’s law is at play.

In California, vast sums of water are diverted into streams and rivers to protect fish. You read correctly.  In December 2008, the Fish and Wildlife Service made a decision driven by a lawsuit filed in federal court by the Natural Resources Defense Council and environmental groups to divert 150 billion gallons of water hoping to protect Delta smelt.

Smelt are 3 inch bait fish, whose population has declined despite massive amounts of water to protect them.  There are 130 animal species in California on the federal endangered list and not a single fish in the California water system has been removed from the list in 35 years.

The problem of water diversion was aggravated further this June when the National Marine Fisheries Service, through demands from the Obama administration, declared that delivering water to the San Joaquin Valley would harm killer whales in the Pacific.  If diverting all this water hasn’t helped the smelt thus far, is it unreasonable to ask farmers to continue suffering?

Congress could resolve this crises by temporarily suspending portions of the Endangered Species Act.  This was done in 2003 in New Mexico and the situation is quite similar to that in California.  The 40,000 people in the valley are desperate for water so that they can get back to work.  Unemployment in this area is reportedly about 40%.

Interior Secretary Salazar has visited the region and is planning to hold a hearing and the valley’s water problems are a top priority for the Obama administration.  Perhaps it should have been in the stimulus bill?

Is this the modern day version of feast or famine?  Fish or famine?

Many of you received my tweets sent as President Obama addressed the AMA in Chicago.  Another highlight of the meeting was that it had gone “GREEN”.  We have all seen a lot of this recently and it was hyped extensively during the Democrat National Convention in Denver.

Basically, this greening indicates that the AMA will no longer send out these massive binders of paper resolutions, or printed programs and all business will be conducted electronically.  I am not denigrating the AMA or any other group that goes “green”.

Let me say unequivocally that I am not adverse to going electronic and using technology to create efficiencies and reduce costs.  I am opposed to the pretense that by using electronic media to avoid cutting down trees (which are renewable, replanted and absorb CO2), that we are more environmentally friendly and resourceful.

Let me explain.  The 3000 or more physician attendees were to bring laptops in order to access the resolutions while at the meeting. This required laptops to be plugged into an electrical outlet.  The heat generated by laptops or any computer is quite significant and that electricity must be generated from some source and the ballrooms accordingly must have enhanced cooling (think more A/C).

Currently, the least costly and most abundant source of electricity is coal generated.  Only 3% of our electricity is generated from solar and wind, and the Bush administration is responsible for doubling that productive capacity to 3%! It was less than 1.5%  a mere 8 years ago.

Now, some poor souls such as myself don’t own a laptop, and some elderly physicians don’t want to carry a laptop around the meeting. What do these neanderthals do?  We of course, print off the resolutions from home or office computers.  That too requires profound electricity usage and paper.  However, the cost to the AMA is greatly reduced and we save on shipping and the gasoline to deliver.

The last point is that all these laptops contain batteries.  These batteries are made with lithium and cobalt.  This is true of most batteries for new electronic gadgetry such as cell phones, i-pods and MP3 players.  These metals are limited in the environmental sense, and are in short supply.  Further, these metals are typically mined in third world countries (Congo) where child labor is extensively utilized.

I am glad that we are saving trees.  I was saddened when my older than 150 year cottonwood went down in the last storm.  

However, we need to use caution when assuming that going paperless is without environmental consequences, or human suffering.  Let us just be honest, not merely politically correct green!

On April 17, the EPA ruled that CO2 is a hazardous substance to our health.  For some, this has been long in coming.  For those of us who value both the environment and freedom, this is an atrocious ruling.

Does that sound bipolar?.  By this ruling, the EPA can now establish regulations and penalties without any oversight.  Because the EPA is not composed of elected officials, they are not accountable.  The director cannot be voted out of office, there is no appeal process and whatever harm is created instantaneously will take decades to undo given the pace of congress.  However, I am not implying that we should not be environmental stewards. 

But what harm could possibly occur and what are the repercussions?  In Iowa, farmers could be severely affected.  The EPA could place restrictions on fertilizer use, planting, livestock, manure management, water run-off and a host of other aspects of farming that would dramatically increase the cost of production.  Now some may think that’s no big deal because farmers are “rich”.  

This is a price all of us would pay.  Increased production costs would reduce the number of smaller farms and less competition with higher input costs, would create shortages and higher prices.  Middle class and low-income consumers would bear the brunt on increased food prices, especially when it comes to labor intensive crops such as fruits and vegetables.

What about the cost to produce energy to run equipment?  What about bio-fuels?  Has anyone considered impact to agricultural research such as that which occurs at Iowa State University?  Years of crop yield research and ongoing studies could be lost.  Iowa as a state could be profoundly impacted and its’ economy dampened.

Just as important is a body of people making regulations over which we have no recourse.  Consider again the unintended consequences of the Consumer Protection Agency regulations put in place to reduce toys imported from China that may contain lead.  This has constrained numerous industries to include home based businesses and resale shops such as Goodwill and the Salvation Army.  These type of regulations should be debated, discussed, open to the public and available on C-Span and then a ruling made and implemented.  

We have rapidly moved into a society which tyrannizes the public, rather than responding to it.  The EPA can rule by fiat, not by the voice of the people through their elected representatives.

Alright, so I am a bit cranky driving cross country to go to North Carolina, and losing an hour of sleep in addition to moving ahead an hour for eastern standard time.

Why do we move our clocks ahead or behind an hour?  We have credible evidence that this practice does not lead to any reduction in electrical use, especially now with 24 hour TV and internet capability through computers.

So if there is no “green” advantage, we should just leave the time alone.  It saves us from getting out the instruction manual of our automobiles to figure how to reset the clock, and we wouldn’t have to get out a step stool to reach the kitchen clock (at least some of us wouldn’t).  It would be easier when making international calls and we would adapt to more light in  the morning and  perhaps get up earlier and jog or walk the dog or ourselves.

I think the entire process of changing the clocks disrupts our biorhythms and is illogical.  With a new hip president and administration, one can always hope for change!