[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Sorry Peter I was using generalizations in my examples.  Los Angeles has
sucked enough water away from other areas as it is though.  My basic
point...poorly stated...was that in general whether it's drinking water
for cities, or as you pointed out correctly, water for irrigation (on land
by the way which no one has any business trying to farm in any large scale
commercial endeavors) too high a price is being paid for this "progress".

Saw 'Cadilac Desert' a few years back I believe.  I recommend it as well.


On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 peter.unmack at ASU_Edu wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, mcclurg luke e wrote:
> > and terrestrial (sp?) just so you have drinking water for cities that have
> > no business being in the places where they've been built. i.e. Phoenix,
> > Los Angeles and Los Vegas.  Folks, there's got's to be a better way...
> Actually they were mostly built to tame the river so the water could be used
> for irrigation and for power generation.  Basically, money controls the
> Colorado R.  Everyone complains about LA and their green grass, however they
> use less than 10% of the water that heads south as part of the Californian
> Central Valley Project.  Most of the water is used for irrigation.
> Interestingly, the crops that use the most water have the lowest economic
> returns.....go figure.  Subsidies are a great thing aren't they!!  If anyone
> hasn't seen the video series Cadillac Desert I'd strong recommend it to you.
> It is fascinating viewing of water development in the West. 
> > Last I heard, the Colorado wasn't even making it to the Sea of Cortez in
> > most years.  Don't know if that's accurate...but I believe it.
> It is accurate.  
> Tootles
> Peter Unmack