California Spending Millions on Fish Ladder to Nowhere

Trout Project Costs Taxpayers Additional $935,000 as State Debt Crisis Grows

Kim Linton
According to the Associated Press, the California Department of Transportation is planning to pave over part of a popular beach in the Santa Monica Mountains to build a "freeway" for fish. The project is the latest attempt by government agencies to lure steelhead trout into the area--adding a whopping $935,000 to the $16.7 million in taxpayer funds already spent on endangered trout recovery efforts.

Former projects include a $1 million concrete fish "ladder" designed to allow fish to migrate upstream. Unfortunately, the $1 million project may cost an additional $7.5 million in stimulus funds to rebuild. After years of trying to rescue steelhead trout, some conservationists believe construction efforts like fish ladders have done only one thing-- absorb millions of taxpayer dollars.

Conservationist Mark Abramson of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation told the AP, "If we do a series of crappy projects like fish ladders to nowhere ... then the public trust for giving money for these types of projects is going to go away."

California's Debt Crisis

Considering California's debt crisis, staggering unemployment rate and unusual share of natural and man-made disasters, it seems interesting that any government agency would propose what appears to be frivolous spending in a time of statewide economic meltdown.

In a special Forbes report on the global debt crisis, California ranked as the 47th worst U.S. state with a 13.2% unemployment rate and 1.6% job growth rate. Also, California's state tax revenue has dropped 12.8% over the last 12 months.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reports show over 1,800 disaster declarations were filed for the state of California in 2010. Severe winter storms, floods, landslides, mudslides and wildfires have taken a heavy toll on the economically strapped state.

Fiscal Responsibility and Upcoming Elections

While saving endangered trout may be a good thing under normal circumstances, spending millions of dollars for concrete fish "highways" during an economic crisis appears irresponsible and reckless. This project is just one example of the types of initiatives that critics use to paint California as a state full of "tree-huggers" who care more about the welfare of animals and plants than people.

Recent polls show California Senator Barbara Boxer receiving only 43% support against any of her top three Republican opponents--dropping from 45% in February. Any incumbent who earns less than 50% of the vote is considered vulnerable at this stage of the election cycle, especially considering the anti-incumbent mood sweeping the nation.

California elected officials and political party leaders would do well to reconsider the multi-million dollar "fish ladder to nowhere" and other non-essential, controversial spending. Otherwise, November elections may cause the fine voters of California to decide that red is not such a bad color after all.

Sources:
Calif.'s Costly Trout Recovery Effort Criticized, Associated Press
Global Debt Crisis, Forbes
California Disaster History, FEMA
Election 2010: California Senate, Rasmussen Reports

Published by Kim Linton

Kim Linton began her writing career in 2001 as a contributor for Ministrymaker Magazine. Kim's work has since been published on a variety of websites including Woman's Day and Intel, and featured on several...  View profile

  • The $1 million concrete fish "ladder" is designed to allow fish to migrate upstream.
  • California has a 13.2% unemployment rate and 1.6% job growth rate.
  • Recent polls show California Senator Barbara Boxer receiving only 43% support.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)reports show 1,884 disaster declarations were filed for the state of California in 2010.

30 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Amanda Cartwright5/3/2010

    Good reporting.

  • leroy coffie4/28/2010

    Fish are important guys, but this important. I love animals like the next person, but come on. Casey, do you believe we should sue us (humans) for invading the fish population.

  • Casey4/27/2010

    I'm with Thomas. I know a little fish might not seem important to someone typing comments on their computer, but those seemingly insignificant animals are important to the ecosystem as a whole.

    To answer another question, these fish were probably fine before humans came around. Then we dammed their spawning river to irrigate farmland and prevent flooding and choked off their homes.

    Or, you know, we could all just keep going after short-term benefits and ignore the long-term damage. That's been working out pretty well for us so far, right?

  • Thomas Trager4/27/2010

    Heh-heh. I guess I'm an oddball: Of all the creatures on earth, only Man produces the type of devestation we see to the environment, and only Man has the ability to actually apply forethought, cognizance, to his actions. As such, I prefer to see initiatives that attempt to correct ecological problems in the web of life. While many humans might find that inconvenient or annoying, particularly when swaddled in layers of misdirective human dynamics, I'd guess humans will live through a little inter-personal squabbling.

    Passenger Pigeons (as an example of one building block in the web of life) on the other hand are extinct.

    Anyone have the skinny on exactly WHAT condition the "fish freeway" was supposed to correct? I'm guessing there was some kind of reason for it beyond someone just wanted to lay down some asphalt for kicks.

  • Lori Lane4/27/2010

    That's ridiculous! Thanks Kim for such an informative report - and I thought NC was facing some issues.

  • Heather Tooley4/27/2010

    Insane what taxpayer money is spent on - esp. in California!

  • Carl Anderson4/27/2010

    It's now a state law that the Calif. Dept. of Transportation must address anadromous (stream/sea migrating) fish passage barriers on it's projects. Caltrans doesn't have a choice, it's just following the legislatures orders. And if you think fish ladders are expensive - try a bridge. Even the smallest highway bridge will cost $4 M including planning/engineering costs. So when you hear resource agencies saying that these are "crappy" projects what that really means is that they would like a natural stream channel restored which requires a new bridge.

  • Timothy Hilton4/27/2010

    My friends in CA are so fed up with stuff like this.

  • Faith Draper4/26/2010

    Crazy what some will spend a fortune on - wonder what the fish did without our help!

  • Vincent Van Noir4/26/2010

    Great article! It is really ridiculous the money that is spent on projects that have no thought placed behind them.

Displaying Comments
Next »

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.