It is common knowledge that as the population increases at such an astronomical, record breaking speed, more resources are impacted. One of these resources is water, the basic building block of life. Water is essential for agriculture, drinking water, and wildlife. And due to the recent droughts California has faced, a debate has arisen over the question that baffles many; Whose water is it? The article published in The Fresno Bee (Fresno’s Mainstream Media), addresses this issue with a pun filled, persuasive article titled, “River Plan Too Fishy For My Taste Buds”. This document discusses the disadvantages that the pointless efforts of The San Joaquin River Restoration Plan will bring to the table. The San Joaquin River Restoration Plan (SJRRP)
…show more content…
But some of the negative consequences are that there is a huge drought as a result of water diversion. The money was not well spent, as it brought more negative consequences than good ones. Fresno all about agriculture, and many farmers were affected by the drought. This repercussion doesn’t only affect locals, but it affects the state’s economy. The inefficient growing of crops can result in a higher price on agriculture products. The money could have been spent in a better way, helping the greater good in other parts of the country. The program achieved what they considered to be their primary goal, but the results are far more negative, casting a shadow over any positive results. After acquiring some data from various trusted sources, my viewpoint stayed the same. I understand that the good intention was there, but due to the ignorance of those who decided to overlook major flaws with the plan, will have to suffer the consequences along with the rest of us, the general population. Sometimes we have to ask ourselves, “At what point do I have to choose the well being of the people against nature”? We need to constantly check the intents of others and ourselves, which begs the question: For The Greater Good,
But some of the negative consequences are that there is a huge drought as a result of water diversion. The money was not well spent, as it brought more negative consequences than good ones. Fresno all about agriculture, and many farmers were affected by the drought. This repercussion doesn’t only affect locals, but it affects the state’s economy. The inefficient growing of crops can result in a higher price on agriculture products. The money could have been spent in a better way, helping the greater good in other parts of the country. The program achieved what they considered to be their primary goal, but the results are far more negative, casting a shadow over any positive results. After acquiring some data from various trusted sources, my viewpoint stayed the same. I understand that the good intention was there, but due to the ignorance of those who decided to overlook major flaws with the plan, will have to suffer the consequences along with the rest of us, the general population. Sometimes we have to ask ourselves, “At what point do I have to choose the well being of the people against nature”? We need to constantly check the intents of others and ourselves, which begs the question: For The Greater Good,