On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 20:19:36 EDT, Wirt Atmar <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>You're both right and wrong. You are absolutely correct that it is
ultimately
>the politicians that control the water supply, but only as a matter of
>policy. Both words, "politicians" and "policy" come from the same Greek
root,
>"polis", from which we derive not only those two words, but also "police",
>"polite", and "metropolis". The word "polis" means "people" (or for those
of
>you who speek Greek, "city" and "state" as well).
>
>The question is how best to serve the people. As it stands now,
agricultural
>usage is very low on everyone's list. One acre-foot of water, if diverted
>from agriculture to industrial use, will generate eight times the wealth
that
>it would if it were spent growing any crop. If that same acre-foot were
to go
>into residential use, it would generate even more wealth.
>
>The same is true for agricultural land. Farming, unless done on a very
large
>scale, has become an almost unsustainable economic activity. Farmland is
much
>more valuable if sold off into residental tracts or strip malls. But the
>question is, where will it end? The Los Angeles Basin was once among the
>richest farmland in the world. Every part of LA was farmland 50, 60, 70,
or
>80 years ago. Indeed, you can probably identify the crops and the farms
that
>used to be where your house is now. Any crop that could be imagined could
be
>grown there, but nothing grows there anymore, other than grass, palm trees
>and golf courses. It's now been completely paved over.

I would submit that the price of farming is just as much under political
control as is the water supply.  I remember a reporter asking the then
presidential candidate, Steve Forbes I believe, "Do you know the price of
a gallon of milk?"  He could not answer because he, like most sitting
Senators, don't buy their own food.  The correct answer would have
been, "What ever Sen. Leahy wants it to be."  The most recent farm bill is
another fine example.  The largest sums of money go to the very large
farming conglomerates.  This makes it impossible for the smaller farmer to
compete.  The prices appear to be low to the consumer but they are
actually higher when the subsidies are added in.  This makes it look like
one cannot make money with farming and why small farms find it worth while
to have their land "completely paved over."  This does not discount what
you have said in any way, I just wanted to point out the fine work done on
behalf of the 'polis'.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *