Jim Nintzel's complaint that Tucson Water is trying to scare people into voting against Prop 200 is quite amusing ("Water Scare Tactics," August 26) because the people against CAP, mainly a car dealer and his buddies, have been scaring people about Tucson water ever since they began their first petition.
I have friends who bring their own water when they visit because they're so frightened of my tap water. I tried bottled water but couldn't see any advantage in taste. It's expensive, and I don't believe it passes the same test of quality and safety required of city water.
Bob Beaudry, John Kromko, Molly McKasson and their misguided friends want to frighten us into restricting our water supply with the bugaboo that CAP water is unhealthy, despite the fact that millions of people in California and Nevada enjoy it. If you don't realize this, how can I trust you on other issues?
We're accused of not honoring the 1995 vote against CAP. Well, people changed their minds on Prohibition, too, and other ideas that turned out badly, the Independent Counsel, for instance, and allowing 18-year-olds to drink. You don't stick with a mistake just to prove you're stubborn.
-- Sue Dye
As the self-proclaimed alternative news source, Tucson Weekly likes to mock the lack of investigative reporting and risk-taking at the daily papers. So why was it left to The Arizona Daily Star to uncover the possible motive behind Bob Beaudry's histrionic attempts to prevent direct delivery of Central Arizona Project water to Tucson Water customers? Can you say full page, inside-cover advertisements?
Beaudry seems unconcerned with the scientific limitations of his recharge plan. He also has no strategy for persuading industrial users of groundwater to trade their groundwater rights, to which they are legally entitled, for more expensive, lower quality CAP water so that residential water consumers can have industry's groundwater allocation. Beaudry doesn't acknowledge the existence of earth fissures and land subsidence that are caused by lowering the water table over 200 feet in the last 50 years.
Until now, it seemed that Beaudry had no idea of how CAP water could be treated to the standards he requires. Now we know that once Tucson forfeits its CAP allocation by failure to use it, and we are condemned to a foreshortened future that will last only as long as the aquifer under our city, Beaudry's friend, C. Brent Cluff, will come to the rescue with an expensive nanofiltration process. But once we have nanofiltered the last drop of groundwater, what then?
Beaudry claims that the aquifer under Tucson contains much more water than Lake Mead, yet Lake Mead provides water for a population far greater than Tucson's. The inference is that Tucson therefore has plenty of water. Is there anyone reading this statement who fails to note the significant difference between Lake Mead and the Tucson aquifer? In the unlikely event that the difference is unclear, I will explain. Lake Mead is recharged by precipitation from a huge drainage basin. If the water were being removed from Lake Mead faster than it is being replaced, the water level in Lake Mead would be declining, which it is not in the long term. The Tucson aquifer is (surprise!) in a desert where we are mining fossil water that fell many years ago. Groundwater in the Tucson basin is not being replaced as fast as it is being removed. That is why the water table is falling. Try to answer this complex question: Pumping more groundwater to serve the ever-increasing demand will cause the water table to a) decline faster b) stay at the same level c) recover to its former volume. The answer seems pretty obvious, but Beaudry seems oblivious to the obvious and unconcerned with scientific and political realities.
One really confusing aspect of this whole boondoggle is that Beaudry's Citizens Alliance for Water Security (CAWS) is opposed to increases in the bills paid by Tucson Water customers. Yet larger, deeper wells and Cluff's new treatment plant will be required if CAWS succeeds in preventing direct delivery of CAP water to residential water users. How is Tucson Water supposed to pay for Beaudry's scheme without raising water bills?
Please challenge your big advertising client to provide some factual information in his advertisements. Water is critical to Tucson's survival. Unscientific, and possibly self-serving, schemes by well-heeled individuals should not be permitted to jeopardize the future of the 700,000 people who call Tucson home.
-- Donna Moulton
I'm in complete agreement with the Weekly's movie review of Xiu Xiu: The Sent Down Girl (Film Clips, August 19). I can't tell you how much guilty erotic pleasure I got from seeing a young innocent exploited, degraded and humiliated until she was suicidal. In fact, I was so turned on that I cried through most of the movie, as did most of the other people in the theatre. I guess it's a strange reaction to such titillation, but what can you expect from a bunch of beret-wearing fuckwits? Unless, of course, the only one sexually aroused was the reviewer, who felt compelled to project his own reality.
-- J. Matthews
To the Editor,
I really do think that you should give responsible thought to my suggestion that you reassign your cinema critic James DiGiovanna to a new area at the closing area of your paper under a new heading, perhaps of "Men Seeking Enlightenment."
What is it that gives him the impression that the Loft's showing of Xiu Xiu was of "a piece of thinly veiled child pornography" to "mostly silver-haired senior citizens who wouldn't be seen dead at Adult Expectations renting Nearly Legal Presents: Hot Maoist Jailbait" wherever and whatever that may mean (Film Clips, August 19).
I suppose you could say that I am a silver-haired senior citizen but you most definitely cannot say that Xiu Xiu said anything about child pornography to me. I was deeply touched by the message I did get from this film. One that I am sure is being given all around the world today -- and that is the callous disregard that authoritarian government shows to the governed can bring such intense pain and heartbreak to its individuals.
Xiu Xiu left me saddened by its message and deeply impressed by its presentation.
Come now, Mr. DiGiovanna, surely you can find a kinder understanding of this film than one of "thinly veiled child pornography."
Where is your soul, dear boy?
-- Roy W. Harris
Editor's Note: The film clip in question was actually penned by Greg Petix, not James DiGiovanna.
Nancy Hand, in her review of Malvina Reynolds ("Marvelous Malvina," August 26), neglects to mention that she was the mother of Nick Reynolds of The Kingston Trio. Nick briefly attended the University of Arizona in the early 1950s.
-- Jack Cox