Then the only people that would go down the Colorado River would be the river
runners. They wouldn't be able to explore side canyons now made accessible
by Lake Powell, and the economy of Southeastern Utah and North Eastern Arizona
would suffer.Why doesn't the writer move out of LA (I assume he
lives there due to the connection with the LA Times, maybe I'm wrong) which
is one of the biggest abusers/users of water not from their local area in the
world. I think a better option would be to cut out the greater Los
Angeles area from Colorado River water. Then the writer would have something to
actually complain about. Higher water bills.
I would challenge a point or two.First, the author presents a
"what-if" scenario based on unfounded projections of prolonged drought
in the west caused by "global warming." There is no scientific support
for those projections, only conjecture.Second, creation of Lake
Powell certainly changed the canyons' environments, but calling that change
"degradation" is a stretch. More fish, birds, and animals live there
now. Sedimentation patterns are always disrupted by dams, but calling one state
"good" and another "degraded" is arbitrary at best.The author is correct in stating that we need to continue improvements in
water usage, but his/her proposed eradication of Lake Powell is one of the
"boondoggles" s/he complains about.
What about just plain old fashioned wise use and conservation?
Drain lake Powell. Drain it now.
There needs to be a law that cities can't prohibit yards with natural
landscaping. In addition education in the schools about our water realities
wouldn't hurt either.