Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r <br /> <br />'. .. 11.0~532 <br /> <br />in the counties benefiting from the project. Mr. Lohse disagreed <br />with that position, saying, "Stewart Udall did Arizona a big <br />favor in pointing out that the state could pay for the project <br />through taxation. If we are going to do that, why shouldn't we <br />own the project?" <br /> <br />A Colleague Disagrees <br /> <br />Th'e Young-Martin argument was challenged next by one <br />of their colleagues, Dr. George W. Campbell, also a U. of A. <br />agricultural economist. He said their study was "unrealistic," <br />ignored "the faets of Hfe" and "drew conclusions from incorrect <br />analyses." The 170 years of available groundwater they talked <br />about, said Dr. Campbell, was actually' in scattered pockets <br />throughout the state. It wasn't a homogenous mass, and Drs. <br />'Young and Martin had not taken into consideration the cost <br />of transporting- the W:l.ter from where it was to where it would <br />be needed. But even assuming there was enough water to last <br />170 years. said Dr. Campbell, it was of doubtful quality. For <br />the general rule was that the deeper one had to drill for water, <br />the worse it tasted. <br /> <br />He also assailed their thesis that municipal and industrial <br />. water users would have, to subsidize farmers. The fact was, said <br />Dr. Campbell, that cheap water for farming would be paid for <br />thro,ugh the sale of surplus electrical power generated, by darns. <br />(" .: <br />'.: Finally, on the question of using expensive water on grain <br />and forage crops: Without such crops, said Dr. Campbell, a <br />whole array of related businesses would fail. There would be no <br />forage for the cattle-feeding industry; fewer cattle to slaughter, <br />fewer slaughter plants and th us fewer jobs. <br /> <br />"I agree with Dr. Young and Dr. Martin that it is impor- <br />tant to examine the economics of Arizona's water problems," <br />said Dr. Campbell. "I believe the results of these examinations. <br />. should be made available to the people of Arizona whether <br />such results are 'favorable' or 'unfavorable' to the construction <br />and operation of the CAP." <br /> <br />But, said Dr. Campbell, he did not feel that the Young- <br />Martin findings were "valid." "The CAP is not needed so much <br />for the next 15 to 25 years," he sllid. "But after that, we're <br />going to be in real trouble keeping our economy going, let alone <br />having one that will grow, if we do not have a statewide dis- <br />tribution system of water. . . Weare dealing with the lives of <br />people and this cannot be brought down exclusively to consider- <br />ations of dollars and cents. Saying who shall have and who shall <br />not have water is a political as well as an economic question. <br />Arizona is a family. As a father of four children, I would hate <br />to be faced with a choice if there were not enough food or water <br />to g-o around. . . The politicillns of Arizona are in this position <br />and I don't envy their position." <br /> <br />The Young-Martin criticism drew still another rebuttal, <br />this one from State Water Engineer W. S. Gookin. He said it <br /> <br />-61- <br />