Dec. 18, 2025 7 AM PT
To the editor: The water scenario within the Colorado River Basin is a basic “tragedy of the commons” drawback: a standard useful resource, belonging to all residents, that every citizen can optimize to their private benefit (“Some big water agencies in farming areas get water for free. Critics say that needs to end,” Dec. 13). The salmon fisherman needs free water to supply the utmost variety of fish, and the farmer needs free water to develop alfalfa for export. In the meantime, the town/business individuals with a much smaller share in impact subsidize the super-low value water for agriculture.
The rational use of widespread water isn’t potential with out rational pricing of the useful resource. A flat charge for all rain and snow water utilized within the Southwest, together with for “nature” makes use of equivalent to fisheries and wetlands, would pressure the fishermen, nature advocates and farmers to ask the query of how a lot profit they get per acre-foot of water, and the water demand will alter to the obtainable provide.
The federal government would most likely subsidize the “water charge” for some individuals, equivalent to environmental advocates. Nonetheless, we might know precisely how a lot that subsidy is.
Dallas Weaver, Huntington Seashore
..
To the editor: Within the article, workers author Ian James cites local weather change as an element contributing to the lowered water provide.
When conservatives argue towards combating local weather change, they typically cite the price of doing so. They need to take into consideration the prices of not having an enough provide of water.
Murray Zichlinsky, Lengthy Seashore
