The Great Thirst

March 9th, 2009

While the title is great, the reading proved to be quite dry. Here is yet another example of how bureaucracy can really scramble and confuse the local democracy. The dominate people are thinking about one thing (which is usually money), but is always self centered. But more interesting to me is the geography of this whole situation. Because I am taking an intro geography the city of Los Angela in their relationship to water sparks a flame.

Why would anyone build a city, destined to grow, in an area that does not have the resources to sustain such growth? Why attract more people to move in and then why cater to them? In this situation expansion was the driving force behind this city, with little thought given to the geography of the city. Once the new comers move, and bring their money with them water must become readily available in a climate and location where it is unnatural. The article slightly mentioned the environmental problems that the dams and other solutions created, mainly because it was not their point. They focused on imperialism as it applied to the natives of the area. But I was much more interested in the geographical consequences of the unnatural placement of the city rather the constant domination of the white man over the other.

Is the water situation we read about a detailed account of the failure of democracy?


Comments are closed.