Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 3:28 am Post subject: Water in the West
I enjoyed how personal these readings were compared to the others. The reading feels more sincere written from the perspective of someone who is directly related to the subject; it also makes it easier to read. Both readings had the same definition of what the west was: aridness. They did a great job explaining how that one characteristic shaped so many things. Rachel’s questions on mycsw seem to imply this aridness adds another perspective to our debate about water: commons vs. commodity. I’m not certain it does. I’ve never seen the argument revolving around whether or not access to water should be something we pay for. It seems that the debate is around how we pay for it, and more importantly whom we pay for it. The difference between public and private is public doesn’t work towards profit while private does. Should water be something that people can profit off of? In Boston we have enough water, we just have to pay to get it clean and to our houses. In the west they sometimes just don’t have enough and as the reading showed, this adds a whole new factor to the lives and lifestyles of the people. What do you think the best way to prioritize water rights is? If there is a drought who should be insured their right to water, those who can pay for it? Those who need it the most (and how do you quantify need?) or should it be evenly rationed amongst everyone?
These readings didn’t even bring up who gets how much water when there isn’t a lot of it, just that there isn’t a lot of it in general. Maybe because they understand the sacredness of water, and appreciate it, that hostility and selfishness just isn’t one of the first things that comes to their minds. I don’t know how the system of distribution technically works there, but I would hope that in their understanding of water, they would divide it up evenly.
It was clear in each reading, like Paul noticed, how much one thing can influence and shape a land. I too really enjoyed the personal aspect of the writer’s voices, especially Joan Didion’s. It was clear how passionate she was about water, in so many aspects, which was refreshing to read. These readings made me feel almost ashamed or guilty that I don’t recognize the presence of water in my life. It’s so easy for me to get water in any form and at any venue that I never, really never, think about where its been, how it got to me, or who had to work to get it there. I wonder whether or not there’s something the West doesn’t think of that the East is always aware of and/or struggling with. Since I don’t think nearly as passionately as Didion does about anything comparable, I wonder.
I agree with Paul that it was nice how these readings were so personal. I liked both authors quite a bit, and I feel like they are both very passionate. The first is passionate about the west and how its aridity has changed it, and the second about where the water has been and is going.
I feel like it is so hard to argue about whom gets water when and what happens if there is not enough and so on because we need it to survive. Water is such a big part of our everyday lives. And it is so annoying to think about how there isn’t enough. I wish that there were a cheaper way to change saltwater to freshwater. If there were, we would all be set for quite a long time. I feel like they will find a way in the future. But, for now we are stuck with just freshwater sources.
Last class we were talking about how the lack of water causes violence and wars. This is going to sound horrible, but it is sort of like nature checking itself, or balancing itself out. If there is not enough water for the current population, then either the water needs to go up or the population needs to go down. And until we find a way to get our hands on more freshwater the population is probably going to have to decrease. It’s just something to think about.
I also appreciated the second reading about where the water comes from and where it goes. I know that our water comes from our various town reservoirs. But I don’t actually know where it all goes. A lot of towns use the MWRA, I believe. But I also know that many don’t, and where does all that go?
I like how both readings defined the West by the amount of annual rainfall, it helps show the focus of the Western culture. Stegner said that the amount of rainfall would've decided if he would become Canadian or American. I wonder if how often something like this would've happened. Obviously the issue wouldn't be on whether you would be Canadian or not but I'm imagining that it had a big effect on who was rich or not. The thing about the East is that its like Stegner said, we're not encouraged to move. The East is relatively abundant in resources which is why we have a lot of families who have stayed in the East for generations. But the West is a struggle. They've gone from one thing to the next. And those who stay, risk a lot.
Paul asked how should the water be rationed, and I can't think of a solid answer to that. I don't see how you can say that you give a farmer a set amount of water and force him to lose his crops, his money, while allowing someone who can buy privatized water public water. So I guess then, should public water become a charity, rather than a right?
The biggest question I have, and I hope it changes the scope of our debate on private vs public vs charity water, is whether we should live where there is no water. In the previous readings there has been a theme of nature driving human innovation and change. In new england, they developed a farming method that worked, until they were able to import and ignore the land. In cities, people developed delivery systems of water, because there was not enough water from wells. Surviving nature has created a human vs nature attitude.
Is this attitude caused by our refusal to live with the land? In the first reading, the settlers in the west were denying that they lived in a desert by the second generation. In Los Angeles, there is an enormous irrigation system pulling water from a large area.
Do we need to live against the land? Or should we instead try to reach a point where we are supported by the land.
Should we live only in places that are we can be sustainable in?
I agree with those who said it was nice to read something more personal. It was not only easier to read and get through, but it made me more connected to the reading i guess.
I feel that because the west definitly needs water and more of it, that instead of letting the east use as much as they can, have a certain amount given to all sides. Yes this would most likely create problems between states, but in the end hopefully the people living in the west wouldnt have as many problems. The east shouldnt be able to just use so much water mind you half the time wasting it, while the other side barely has any as it is. I wish it was easier to fix than it is.
Also why do people need to make a profit off of water? water should not be something that people begin to make more expensive and make less available to people...while water is a huge necessity!
I really enjoyed this reading! It was much less factual than most of the readings we've been doing. I thought the part at the end of Holy Water, when the narrator talks about all of the things they wanted to do, was a little weird, but at the same time, very powerful. I really liked the part where narrator talked about how they like to think about where water is and where its coming from. And then I also liked how the water reserve is called "Quail." That is such a funny name for a reservoir! It holds an amazing amount of water, though. I didn't realize quite how much water could be in a reservoir. Sure, reservoirs can be as large as a small lake, but the number 1.6 billion gallons absolutely astounds me. And it said how they store roughly a TRILLION gallons of water behind the Oroville Dam. That's insane! How can we be having a water crisis when there's this much water? Why can't we just ship some of this water down south, or out west, where people need it? We seem to have plenty here...
I thought "Living Dry" was a little bit confusing in some parts. But I still kind of liked it. It's too bad that the author missed becoming a Canadian due to an inch or two of rain. That would have been super cool if he had become one. In the reading, he says that, "We can't create water, or increase the supply. We can only hold back and redistribute what there is." But, according to the second passage, we have trillions of gallons of water just in one reserve. Which means there are many many trillion gallons of water being stored around the world. Which is sort of a lot to hold back... When we're having such a huge crisis right now, why are we saving so much? I mean, I can see why we would need to save a lot in case of a severe long-term drought, but do we actually need THAT much? That's so much to save at one time, I feel like we could probably use a little bit more of that. Am I wrong about this? I don't really know, I might not have a very good perspective on this- there are a lot of people too. So how long would it take to go through all of that water if there were to be a drought?
While doing the reading, I made the connection that white civilization in America had gotten to a point where you never really need to live in a place with an abundance of resources because those resources can always be mass produced somewhere else and transported. If you're a prospector, your gold is all you need to stay alive in the desert because it can buy you the water you need to survive. I feel as though the commodifying of things like water helped to push easterners westward.
To answer all three of Rachels questions, I think that it is always going to be wrong to monopolize water. I think that it if fine as a commodity as long as it is being transported or cleaned, but it's bad whenever a natural water supply is blocked from communal use for the purpose of a company charging money for it.
I also enjoyed the personal aspect of the reading. I appreciated it however I kept in mind that a personal connection can mean a strong bias. Not necessarily in this case however I would guess that the author at least of living dry would not think that it is would be a good idea to leave areas with insufficient water as he loves the west.
I think that Travis's question was an interesting one of "whether we should live where there is no water." I defiantly believe that in some cases it does not make sense to build so much where there is so little water Las Vegas being the most extreme case i can think of in the U.S. That said people are not self sustaining any more. We all contribute a little to society and hopefully get back what we need. So if certain areas do not have all the water that they need ideally they would contribute something to the areas that have water and get water in return. This goes back to the whole question of whether water should be free or not as in hypothetical I stated that the West would only get water if it gave something else to the East.
Is this fair? Should someone give something to someone else if they are not getting anything back?
Ella stated in her post that because the east has an excess of water it should be divided between them. I believe that this should be true. However think about all the other cases in which one party has an excess and the other does not have enough. It is rarely given for free. everything must be purchased it seems. Is this good or bad? what is an alternative?
It’s amazing how much this reading compared to my movie, Chinatown. The idea of water being used as a means of profit was a motif in the movie.
I agree that water should not have to be sold, and apparently the writers of Chinatown agree as well, considering their antagonist, who is portrayed as exceedingly wealthy, is the one who plans a ridiculous scheme involving the lack of water in Los Angeles in order to profit unnecessarily. One of the protagonists believes the water should not be owned by one person, and is promptly murdered by the antagonist more or less because of this belief, possibly showing the power of wealth. The movie also ends with a bitter, ‘the rich control everything’ taste in your mouth.
Anyway, in an ideal world, it certainly would be great if water was available to everyone for a reasonable price. Unfortunately, that’s not the case, so I’m having difficulty seeing the point in figuring out which group of people should have priority or how water should be rationed among people if the stubborn wealthy class are the ones who control and sell the water. Is there a way to stop this wealthy, water-vacuum-pack-selling-machine?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
