FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

As the story goes, the utilities had initiated their plans to build the coal-burner way back in the early 60's, when everyone still expected energy consumption to keep growing and multiplying indefinitely. Apparently no one had foreseen the day when the use of power would decline (which is exactly what has happened: This country is using less energy this year than last. . . and the downward trend is now expected to continue).

When the two companies reassessed the projected cost of their plant (an estimated $3.5 billion!) against the actual need for the power that it would produce, they soon found that the former far outweighed the latter. As William Gould, Southern California Edison's executive vice-president put it, "Over the 13 years the project was on the drawing board, costs steadily increased and environmental requirements were added. Finally it just crossed over the line of economic feasibility."

So the Kaiparowits caper was killed. Conservationists were pleased. The utility companies were relieved. Just about everyone, in fact, was happy . . . except for the residents of Kanab, Utah, who had been looking forward to cashing in on the construction jobs and money that the nearby project would've stimulated. They responded to the announcement by burning Robert Redford in effigy.

The moral of the story? Well, perhaps even the big power companies are beginning to get the message: It's safer, saner, cleaner, and less expensive to save a watt than to produce one.

FAMILY FARMERS VS. AGRIBIZ

If you had visited California's Westlands region sometime before 1920, you would've seen 522,000 acres of barren land, some dry brush, and a few scrawny jackrabbits. You could've bought a piece of it for $97 an acre, but most folks probably would've said you were crazy.

Today that same territory west of Fresno is lush, green, and fruitful . . . in fact, it's one of the most productive agricultural areas in the entire nation. And the reason for the almost-magical transformation can be explained in a single word: water. Water pumped and paid for by the federal government, and used to coax bumper crops from the otherwise arid soil.

Unfortunately, there's one sticky problem: Those irrigation projects are illegal. And they're at the core of a controversy that's getting hotter by the minute.

It seems that most of the property comprising the Westlands (which is roughly the size of Rhode Island, and now valued at $1,000-plus per acre) is in the hands of just a few corporate giants. Southern Pacific (which alone owns 110,000 acres), Standard Oil, Getty Oil, and several others employ large-scale agribiz methods—and make extensive use of low-paid migrant worker help—to turn a handsome profit on their lands. Government subsidies defray most of the expense of irrigation.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print