I'm kinda surprised nobody has started this thread before.
Anyway, saw this article, and there were so many inaccuracies and so much bias it got me fired up enough to post it:
New York Times Article
The first problem I have is the second paragraph, "And life, for the most part, has gone on just as before." Just give me a break. Really? Because last summer I could water my lawn and wash my car.
Also, I have a question, if the Corps of Engineers says they must continue, maybe increase, the flow out of Lanier to comply with the law (presumably the Endangered Species Act), when they actually drain the lake so far that there is no flow, will they be charged with breaking that law and someone in charge be arrested? Shouldn't they have managed the flow earlier and better so that there would be at least some water flowing. Because I'm thinking some water flowing is better than none.
OK, now discuss...
Anyway, saw this article, and there were so many inaccuracies and so much bias it got me fired up enough to post it:
New York Times Article
The first problem I have is the second paragraph, "And life, for the most part, has gone on just as before." Just give me a break. Really? Because last summer I could water my lawn and wash my car.
Also, I have a question, if the Corps of Engineers says they must continue, maybe increase, the flow out of Lanier to comply with the law (presumably the Endangered Species Act), when they actually drain the lake so far that there is no flow, will they be charged with breaking that law and someone in charge be arrested? Shouldn't they have managed the flow earlier and better so that there would be at least some water flowing. Because I'm thinking some water flowing is better than none.
OK, now discuss...
Last edited: