Water's Flow From Private Hands

The Washington Post ^ | Monday, August 12, 2002 | William Booth

[SEGUET]

" It would make no "economic" sense to live in Los Angeles if Government hadn't intervened with massive water diversion."

People who come out here to go to Disney Land just don't get it do they - LA's a desert - thank god for those money stealing rich people that brought water to the LA Basin and Las Vegas!!!

[ravinson]

I support government "subsidized" water supplies to semi-arid communities such as Los Angeles.

Government bureaucracy is obviously your drug of choice, but be careful how you mix it. Subsidizing rice growers makes water more expensive for urban users.

[MissAmericanPie]

I like your idea.

[Willie Green]

I think what ravinson is talking about is the "use it or lose it" concept in prior appropriation water rights. If the irrigator(right holder) doesn't use the water as it's highest beneficial use(agriculture), he loses the rights to that water.

I'm not sure where ravinson is coming from, Ben. My initial reaction is that he's a libertarian "free market" extremist who opposes government involvement in the development of vital infrastructure. However, it is equally possible that the same arguements would have been put forth by a liberal enviro-nut seeking to "protect" the "fragile" desert ecosystem.

Myself, I don't see anything constructive by pitting one group against another over a vital resource such as water. I believe that government has a legitimate role to play in developing the infrastructure to provide bountieful water for all, be it through construction of dams, reservoirs, water treatment plants or desalination plants.

[Ben Ficklin]

Whatever his political position is, he is right about the relative use of water by agriculture.

There are no doubt many, many farmers that could use less water to produce a crop but they would be penalized by losing their rights.