San Joaquin Summary

The San Joaquin had a restoration plan with a debatable question, would the outcome benefit California or not? It was unknown if the river would support salmon or how it would affect the economy. Then in 2009, McEwen answered that question within his article with pessimistic expectations and concerns. With this in mind, McEwen’s article is juxtaposed with articles of 2015 on the San Joaquin River and area.

The first expectation McEwen predicted was that salmon would be a problem in the restoration plan. In his article, McEwen explains, “Salmon need clear, cool, highly oxygenated water to thrive – a description that hasn’t fit the San Joaquin since the 1940s”(1). His claim is that the restoration plan won’t work, since the waters are scalding for salmon. In addition, an editorial from this year, “Salmon belong where they can thrive – not in San Joaquin River”,

Lastly, McEwen had concerns about the Sierra water runoff. He criticized that “ there is no funding for dams or river recirculation technology that would maximize Sierra water runoff and lessen the economic devastation to some San Joaquin Valley farmers”(McEwen). In other words, McEwen wants funding for dams in the Sierra runoff because it would help San Joaquin farmers. His opinion still stands with McClintock in “Bone-dry California dumps water to 'make fish happy '”, an article, quoted by Greg Crorumbos:

“We haven’t built a major dam in this state since 1979,” McClintock said. “Meanwhile, the population has nearly doubled. We aren’t going to solve our water problems until we begin building more dams. We can’t build more dams as long as the radical environmental laws make their construction impossible”(McClintock).

That is, McClintock considers that the drought is still occurring because laws are making construction to save water invalid. To put it briefly, McEwen’s concern is similar to concerns of other in