reply to: What did you think about the history he presents, and his proposals? It's extremely sad to read this document from 2008, seven years after "Salmon Without Rivers" by Jim Lichatowich. The history of salmon population degradation started in the late 1800s with the canning industry being marked as the next gold rush. Through deforestation, which increases water temps, intensive grazing, which increases turbidity and soil erosion, and unfair water rights, the fate of the historical salmon is almost its own unicorn. I believe that agencies like Microsoft play a large role in the development and distribution of resources, on top of ecological footprint and image. If processes and resource management don't change at the rate that is described in the literature, the ESA has very little to work with in the form of protection. A full communal and corporate approach to ecosystem restoration is vital if the salmon population has any hope of returning. Can you think of any additional, helpful tools to add to his list, and how might your suggestions work? Funny enough, the Rob Harmon TED talk from this week's resources was quite an interesting concept to implement. Now, do I think districts like Los Angeles will commit to such water use adjustments, given that a large portion of the Colorado River goes straight to them? No. But it is a fantasy worth dreaming within my lifetime. I believe, in the capitalistic society we operate in, that incentivizing influential agencies to do something like buying water access is a great way to not only stimulate the local economy, but also keep the natural systems operating. If larger corporations delved into reducing their ecological footprint as much as engineering their next product design, then we might have a chance. If private sector influence is combined with factors like the ESA, the level of impact goes through the hypothetical roof. How might we create imaginative economic structures to pay for more proactive tools? Given that my degree path isn't marketing or business, I'm just going to shoot blanks in the dark while blindfolded on this question. There are many great ideas being sparked early in generational workflow and I believe by scouting through microprojects or simple "shark tank" methodology, that great ideas can be brought to life from the underground. Aside from starting from scratch, often taking a fresh set of eyes and minds to a new project is a great way to find holes and way to further elevate the situation. Perhaps connections and hidden resource pools will be realized in this incredible complex society we live in. I believe the U.S. has more green running through its pockets then the land it preserves, hence why I believe that solutions can be easily attainable as long as the right people are task-organized effectively. What might some innovative economic structures (things like taxes, incentives, but others as well--private and public partnerships--think as broadly as possible) look like that could complement the ESA's legal protections? After reading a World Wildlife Fund article about insurance agencies and hydroelectric dams, I have a new appreciation insurance company. By educating and influencing insurers, harmful dam projects in protected areas can be curtailed (correct way to politically pay off people). If insurers will not back a project, then the project falls through. Although it sounds like a dirty play, I believe it works effectively across the world. In the face of climate change, when water is becoming further and further scarce, starting at the source of many problems, like dams, through agencies that deal with matters like insurance, incentives to develop can be curtained most definitely