3 ms·

I’m not quite sure how that matters much when the primary problem with water in the western US is simply that there is not enough. If infrastructure costs are

• mabbo 3y ago
  I don't disagree with you: there is an issue with "we don't have enough water here". But when we criticize a problem, it's important that we are very accurate in the size and scale of the issues. Over-stating the costs to consumers by ignoring other components of the price tag runs the risk that those who are on the other side of this issue will use your oversight as a defence. "Oh clearly you aren't being honest, as you're hiding this other fact". What if the agri-business now publish a report that shows that in actuality, when you factor in infrastructure costs, they are actually paying more for water? (I doubt it, but it's entirely possible).
  • njovin 3y ago
    This is definitely as corrupt and not as nuanced as you might think. I recommend the book Cadillac Desert whenever this discussion comes up. The history of water management and delivery in the American west has been one of corporate greed, regulatory capture, and massive environmental damage in the interest of profits. The author details all of this dating back to the Dam boom and the Army Corps of Engineers being in cahoots with agro-giants early in the 20th century and damming rivers all over the west with the primary (but not admitted) purpose being cheaper water for corporate farmers.