Tucson Weekly: Mailbag (July 16

Water Works

To the Editor.
You dare me to let you know what I think of your hyperdynamic efforts; My dictionary does not list the word, so I'm at a loss to define it. Taken apart, hyper indicates over, above, or in great amount; and dynamic pertains to energy, force, or motion in relation to force.
Mailbag Your articles sure do lay it on the line, Skinny, etc.--a little smutty--obscenity at times--which I just gloss over. A shirt-tail relative some time ago observed me reading a Tucson Weekly and asked why I was reading that rag. To each his own.
Regarding "Knee-Deep In Muddy Water" (July 2), Molly McKasson and Dave Devine write, "The water will be sent to the city's treatment plant for the addition of chemicals to combat acidity problems." I do believe that the word acidity should read alkali, on the basis of what Tucson Water spokesman Mitch Basefsky told me in a phone conversation.
In essence, he said that at this point in time, they don't know what the quality of the recovered water at Avra Valley will be. They suspect that the pH level will be 8 plus, and will have to be adjusted downward. To me that means adding acid to the water, which I feel is a worse-case scenario. I am opposed to adding any chemicals, acid or alkali, to our drinking water. At this point in time, I am not ready to sacrifice my impaired kidneys and overhead galvanized plumbing on the altar of accommodation for developers--otherwise known as the 100-year "assured water supply" designation for the City.
--Robert Walcott Sr.
To the Editor,
Regarding "Knee-Deep In Muddy Water" (July 2): The opposition to direct use of CAP water is based on several wrong assumptions:
1) CAP water can be safe and drinkable. Tucson Water had problems with their initial water treatment, but those problems can be overcome.

Recharge will lower the water quality, not raise it. Evaporation during recharge and leaching through the soil will raise the TDS. Recharge does not remove salts from the water.

Recharge water will not be diluted by the groundwater. Recharge water "plug" flows into groundwater and remains separate rather than mixing with it. Groundwater is in the tiny pores of sediments where the only mixing mechanism is diffusion, and diffusion is very slow. That restricted mixing is much different than the mixing that can occur in a lake.

Using the Rillito Creek for CAP recharge will decrease the Rillito's ability to recharge the low-TDS water from the Catalinas. We should maximize the recharge of that excellent water.

CAP water has a higher salt content than our groundwater. Whether one likes that or not is a matter of taste, not of health. The water is good enough for Phoenix, Los Angeles, and San Diego but apparently not good enough for our refined palates. We have been spoiled by having such good quality (low TDS) groundwater. Tucson is very lucky in having such water in the Southwest, but we have mined it and now have to pay the price.

Tucson Water badly mishandled the public-relations problems resulting from their initial mistakes. I think they could have avoided all this grief by admitting the problem immediately and fixing it as soon as possible.
I support the City Council's actions. The propositions and their supporters have good intentions but are nonsense technically. CAP water is not the greatest but using it is the best choice that we have.
--Hinrich Bohn, Professor
UA Dept. of Soil, Water and Environmental Science

Phony Bill

To the Editor,
Regarding Sam Smith's "The Prez and The Press" (June 18): Actually, you missed the "real story." Perhaps even more stupendous, doubly unbelievable, yet infallibly true is the fact that there is no Bill Clinton at all!
That's right. Last Tuesday afternoon I undertook the hardship of a 100-mile trek through the barrens of our beloved, fading Sonoran Desert (during summer) to the house of an anonymous friend of mine. I barely survived this adventurous sojourn. My car broke down and I did not bring any nourishment, save one 99-cent bottle of apple juice and a bag of salted peanuts. Gasping for breath, lips cracked, throat parched, I made it to the door and feebly gathered up energy enough to knock.
This particular friend happens to be a graphic artist and has captured absolutely every single major television appearance made by the alleged "William Jefferson Clinton" on VHS tape. Standard process appears to involve transferring a whole bunch of audiovideo data from VHS to 35mm film via scary-looking equipment. The only thing more terrifying to me than all the complicated wiring, monitors, screens, and weird noises was the horror when I inquired as to how much all of it cost.
There is no real President Of These United States. Sorry folks. I suggest you pay a little more attention. My friend revealed his conclusion to me by comparing digital samples of a man who appeared to be William Jefferson Clinton at the police awards ceremony with other samples of him at his first and second inaugurations. None...I repeat, none of the men in any section of tape was THE SAME PERSON. Sheesh, don't I look the fool, having voted for a nonexistent personae and all.
This concrete evidence might lead some to pose the question, "Who is the President Of The United States?" Yet, in this genuine moment of divine illumination, my own eye reveals a deeper, universal query, namely, "Who are they?" In any case, whomever they may be, they are finally, undoubtedly here. And if you don't believe me, then just ask yourself, and answer honestly, "Have I ever actually seen the President...or touched him?"
So how about it then? Who in the hell is this guy? Who is to blame for such a grievous disturbance in the forces of space and time?
I suspect John Travolta...among others.
--Kevin David Bennett
We Want Letters!
Thrilled by our brilliant insights? Sick of our mean-spirited attacks? Need to make something perfectly clear? Write: tucsonweekly@tucsonweekly.com

Home | Currents | City Week | Music | Review | Books | Cinema | Back Page | Archives