3 ms·
Sure. And that would be a good reason to promote more efficient irrigation along with the aqueduct. And to limit the amount of water removed from the river, and
by cyberax 2y ago
Sure. And that would be a good reason to promote more efficient irrigation along with the aqueduct. And to limit the amount of water removed from the river, and to construct reservoirs to manage the seasonality.
However, calling the proposed aqueduct "regressive" is not a good reasoning.
- anonymouskimmer 2y agoIt seems kind of regressive for a common tax to pay for the aquifer that primarily benefits the farmers. If its paid for by taxing the farmers directly, or at least proportionately, then sure, it probably wouldn't be regressive.
- cyberax 2y agoI don't think the author meant "regressive" in that sense. For them it means: "Actually thinking about a solution instead of wringing hands"