Carol Schmidt
May 5, 2003, 1:46 PM
Post #8 of 11
(642 views)
Shortcut
|
Re: [pathall] The new Jack Nicklaus golf course
|
Can't Post | Private Reply
|
The new Atencion has a nice juxtaposition of two front page articles on the golf course. One is a smarmy sales pitch kind of article about how luxurious and exclusive the complex will be, and how new members are being recruited, and how Nicklaus himself was thrilled by the site and eager to get started with designing the course. The article makes it clear that promoters are presenting the resort as a fait acompli.
The adjoining article notes that the investors haven't even applied for the forms to get an environmental impact report done, and that process will take many months, and no approval has been given for the project at all. It mentions the hefty fines which can be leveled at projects which attempt to proceed without such a report and approval. All work can be stopped if they proceed without approval.
The questions about water usage are not just about the reclamation plant which the resort will help subsidize, which will provide all the water for the greens and for other community uses as well. The unanswered questions are about where the water is supposed to come from for all the development which will accompany the golf course, such as restaurants and hotels and new luxury houses, which certainly will not use reclaimed water!
The groundwater reservoir used by SMA is already down 50%, and it's not something that fills up the next rainy season--groundwater takes thousands of years to refill. Water shortages are a worldwide problem, including much of Mexico--we can't just go on as usual, ignoring the implications of our actions.
Yes, agriculture uses something like 85% of the water here and there are many wasteful farming practices which would yield the greatest results if more ecological practices were adopted. But change is hard for someone who has always done something one way and doesn't have the money or luxury of time to allow for conversion to new methods--that land must yield its crop now, or it is disaster for the farmer. It will be expensive and time-consuming to educate farmers on better farming practices.
Meanwhile it would be much easier for those of us who know about such things to make those changes which are easier--and to stop ecological disasters before they get started, like this golf complex.
Of course it's easy for me to say--I've never played golf in my life, and couldnt afford anything connected with the new resort, and my income doesn't depend on tourism. It's a hard question for those involved, who want SMA's economy to grow. It's the usual problem: better ecological practices can be costly in the short run no matter how necessary they are for the long run.
Carol Schmidt
|
Forums Index
Search Posts
Who's Online
Log In or Sign Up