LETTERS
thorrran&s of hedares of additional land? To what level would prices have to drop to absorb large additional quantities?
Et.nmiardable water storage sites in this part of Israel; underground storage of DEAR SIR: . .on water would result in considerable loss The feature article, ‘‘m in volume and considerable impair-Power Plant Proves Economically ment in quality, due to picking up soluFeasible,” which appeared in the June ble salts from the soil or geologic 1968 issue (page 428) is misleading in strata its conclusion about economic feasibilWhen these factors are taken into ity, and dangero~~~Iy so to the extent account, the cost of water actually dethat it might help divert investment into unprofitable channels. We do not, livered to the farmer‘s land-and still on the basis of the engineering cost at this time, challenge the engineering run estimates of the article-would design and cost estimates of a plant close to $300 per acre foot, if indeed which proposes to employ designs, not higher. For what is this expexive some of which are not yet technically water possibly economically feasible? developed on this d e ; but we do chalWinter grains, particularly wheat, lenge, on the basis of the data in the might be grown in this area; a 6 to 12 article, any suggestion that the p m p e inch supplemental irrigation might be sal is economically feasible as a source sdEcient, if natural moisture were conof water supply for agriculture in Isserved rigorously. Such irrigation rael or, for that matter, for agriculture would thus cost $150 to $300 per acre; anywhere else. but the highest wheat yields, even with In this feature article, cast estimates the most advanced management and are presented on the basis of 5, 7, and the newest varieties, could hardly gross 10% k e d charges; these involve intermore than $150 per acr-leaving est costs on capital outlay of 1.9, about nothing to pay for labor, machinery, 4, and 896, respectively. Ody the land, and other productive factors. last makes economic snse for Israel Summer crops, such as cotton, can or for any developing country; d e s be grown; but, in this climate, the waan investment employing untested ter consumption could hardly be less methods can yield an estimated return than 3 acre feet per acre, and might be of at least 8 2 , it should not be underconsiderably higher. This means an irtaken, for there are competing investrigation water cost reaching close to ment opportunities that can tolerate $lo00 per acre annually. Even with this rate or higher. On the basis of the highest cotton yields, gross income 10% h e d charges, water costs are estiper acre is unlikely to run much above mated in the article at $218 per acre half of that, to say nothing of payment foot. This is water at the desalination for labor, machinery, etc. plant; according to the “note” on page Citrus? Mediterranean countries 429, the capital cost of delivering this now have a substantial surplus of water to irrigable land in Israel would citrus; in the season just closed, large add about 14% to the total capital tomages were destroyed and others cost. To this would have to be added dumped at fire sale prices in other considerable power costs for pumping; countries. We doubt if any prospective any signi6cant body of new good ircitrus grower is interested in such rigable land in Israel lies at elevations expensive water. of 500 feet and more above sea level. Vegetables, especially for the outThe article assumes 310 days operaof-season market? This is not the gold tion of the desalination plant annually, mine some people seem to think; costs at a constant daily volume. This water are high, risks are great, and pmlit~ supply does not conform to irrigation demand, yet the economic analysis in- over a period of years are not high. Moreover, where could Israel possibly cludes nothing to provide storage fasell winter vegetables grown on many cilities. a r e exist no significant US-
The pI.opsed clesalination plant is “ecommic- d y in the Seme that several methods of operation or of factor design can be changed without truly &r sect upon the estimated cost of irrigation water. But, all of the e!stimatedal&are~~toolligh to be remotely ecowLlljc in any real sense of the term. If a man who caunot swim step into dzep water, it does not matter much if the water is 28.6, 43.4, or 67.0 feet deep.
M r i o r ~ 5 H . hmdskg, and L e T. Resources for the E m r e , Inc. Washington, D. C
W+acrcFpliUiUS
DEAR!&R: The issueg of water quality management are far more complex thau most of us realize. It is s t i l l commonplace for t k engker, the &mist, the politician, and the promoter of special viewpomts to exponnd from a position of self-proclaimed exprtise in this field. But ACS and ENVIRONMENTAL -CE AwD ‘l”OI.tEY are not commonplace, and editorial opiniom above all must no& be so. We have comealongwaysketkH’ *A jurist in 1904 dedam&=It is notnecessaly to weigh with tendenless and care the testimony of experts. Any 0mortal knows whether water is fit to drink or use.” Every water llse constitutes a water degradation. An anti-degradatim policy is an anti-use policy A maximum use policy is a maximum degdation policy. Federal law carries the directive to preserve quality for maximum use -obviously an i m p a s i i . Much better is the goal of hi#est qua€ity consisrent with maximum beneficial use to man. Resolving the quality goals which achieve this delicate balance of cleanliness and d c e calls for the best talents of engineers, bidogistq economists, poliand experts of all types. Identified @ resultant from these cooperative &or& will not sat-
-
