By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The US Army Corps of Engineers released approximately 2.2 billion gallons of water from two Central California reservoirs at President Trump’s order, purportedly to aid fire-ravaged Southern California. This action, however, is criticized for its lack of coordination with state and local water managers and its wasteful timing during a wet winter, jeopardizing agricultural water supplies later in the year. The released water did not reach Los Angeles, as it flowed into the Tulare Lake bed, offering limited irrigation benefits and potentially causing future water shortages for Central Valley farmers. Experts and state officials express deep concern over this poorly planned release.
Read the original article here
2.2 billion gallons of water flowed out of California reservoirs due to an order from the Trump administration to open dams, an action widely criticized as reckless and wasteful. This massive release of water occurred during a time when California already faced water scarcity concerns, threatening the state’s agricultural sector and raising serious questions about the decision-making process behind the order.
The timing of this water release is particularly troubling given the existing drought conditions in California’s Central Valley, a region heavily reliant on agriculture. The lost water jeopardizes the success of crops, potentially leading to increased food prices and impacting the livelihoods of farmers who depend on this vital resource. The irony isn’t lost on many, who point out the significant number of farmers in the Central Valley who voted for Trump.
Concerns are being raised about the potential for this action to amount to ecological sabotage. Critics argue that releasing such a vast quantity of water served no discernible benefit and instead caused significant harm to the environment and the economy. The claim that the released water was intended to combat wildfires is dismissed as nonsensical by many, who point out the impracticality and ineffectiveness of such an approach.
Some view this decision as an act of political spite or vindictiveness, a deliberate attempt to harm a state that consistently votes against the Trump administration. The lack of any apparent benefit to the water release fuels this interpretation, suggesting the primary motive was not environmental concern, but rather political retribution.
The sheer volume of water wasted is staggering, and many are expressing incredulity that such a decision could be made without a thorough understanding of the consequences. Questions linger about the competence and foresight of those responsible, highlighting a worrying disregard for the implications of their actions.
The economic ramifications of this event could be severe. The predicted increase in the price of produce, especially considering the already existing inflationary pressures, will undoubtedly impact consumers and underscore the devastating impact of this decision. The potential for long-term water shortages in the region adds to the gravity of the situation.
There is significant debate about the culpability involved. While some attribute the decision to the sheer ignorance of the administration, others believe there was a calculated intent behind the action, citing the potential political motivations. Regardless of the underlying reasons, the results remain disastrous, with the state facing the damaging consequences of this reckless act.
The event is viewed by many as an example of reckless disregard for the environment and the wellbeing of the state’s citizens. The lack of transparency surrounding the decision further compounds the outrage. The long-term impacts are still uncertain, but the immediate consequences are clear: a significant reduction in water resources during a period of drought, jeopardizing agriculture and potentially causing widespread economic hardship.
The silence from conservative voices on this issue is notable and is fueling speculation about the potential reluctance to criticize a figurehead within their political party. The stark contrast between the lack of condemnation and the widespread criticism from opposing viewpoints underscores a significant political divide.
It remains a sobering example of a decision with far-reaching consequences, raising questions about accountability and the potential for similar actions in the future. The aftermath will likely be long and complex, leaving a lasting impact on California’s water resources and its economy.