California should not spend the money for the San Joaquin Restoration Project. Bill McEwen’s article, River Plan Too Fishy for my Taste Buds, clearly states his opinion on the controversial topic of the San Joaquin Restoration Project. The newspaper, Fresno Bee, published this article on March 26 of 2009 in Fresno, California when congress officially approved of the San Joaquin project. Due to the fact that farms surround Fresno, the people who live there consist mostly of farmers, and they do not agree with the river project. Bill McEwen, a local Fresno, proves as a credible source because he worked as a writer at The Fresno Bee for 35 years. I believe the river restoration project might head towards disadvantageous direction because, as stated …show more content…
The success was the progress of salmon coming back, but the failures lies on the drought that California has been exposed to. The water diverted from the farmers will cause them to use up about 300,000 acres of farmland. The money spent on the river as of 2012 estimates to $892 million and levee improvements for the river approximate to $188 million, and the total of all that rounds up to over $1 billion, which was way over the original estimate of $400 million. My viewpoint remains the same because only a small amount of fish came back and the amount of money put into it was not worth it. The cost of reviving the river in 2012 exceeded the estimated amount when they approved of the plan. The tiny amount of salmon brought back does not compare to the huge amount of money funded towards this project. Furthermore, a drought has engulfed California and the water shortages for the farms will be even worse than it already was. If the El Niño hits California, there might still be hope for this project, but we do not when it is going to happen and what will happen to the river and farms if El Niño does not come soon. For now, the money and efforts spent, to me, are still foolish and the results of the river project these six years do not surprise