Dear Editor,
There have been varied, interesting responses in the press to the response of our water administrators to our annually 'celebrated' water woes. Some headlines I have seen are 'Wanted: A minister for water', and 'Slipping up on water policy'. These justify and give traction to the question, why not desalination?
Desalination has been brought to the fore by the press repeatedly. I strongly believe that the concept and elementals are known by the relevant authorities. It seems as if suggestions of desalination, as even a partial solution, have not matriculated for consideration by the water 'authoritarians'.
Why not think seriously about desalination for the long term? Are we fearful of the inherent technical complexities demanded by the process? If we are, we need not be. We are experienced importers of technical expertise, 'technocrats' and unnecessary consultants. Are we unable to afford same?
I have an ambitious idea: Use the expected savings (over an extended period) from the 'guaranteed' lower electricity costs as initial funding. There should be no greater outcry or lamentation from the overly expectant consumers than that made when money earmarked for 'houses' is re-routed. If we think desalination is too expensive, check out the opportunity cost regarding bush fires and forfeiture of earnings in agriculture. Can we prevent further corrosion of the environment by the extracted salt? Yes! Throw it into the sea where it belongs. The situation is 'watery' ironic. Water is irrefutably the most common existence on Earth, yet the perennial cry is that it is short. The fact and irony is that Jamaica is surrounded by water. At this time, the NWC is applying its restrictions as people drive over and alongside water to jostle to buy water tanks. I invite us as a nation to be the regional leader in implementing and promoting effective, efficient desalination.
Hensley Pink
Lampard, Clarendon
h_s_pink@yahoo.com
Why not desalination?
-->
There have been varied, interesting responses in the press to the response of our water administrators to our annually 'celebrated' water woes. Some headlines I have seen are 'Wanted: A minister for water', and 'Slipping up on water policy'. These justify and give traction to the question, why not desalination?
Desalination has been brought to the fore by the press repeatedly. I strongly believe that the concept and elementals are known by the relevant authorities. It seems as if suggestions of desalination, as even a partial solution, have not matriculated for consideration by the water 'authoritarians'.
Why not think seriously about desalination for the long term? Are we fearful of the inherent technical complexities demanded by the process? If we are, we need not be. We are experienced importers of technical expertise, 'technocrats' and unnecessary consultants. Are we unable to afford same?
I have an ambitious idea: Use the expected savings (over an extended period) from the 'guaranteed' lower electricity costs as initial funding. There should be no greater outcry or lamentation from the overly expectant consumers than that made when money earmarked for 'houses' is re-routed. If we think desalination is too expensive, check out the opportunity cost regarding bush fires and forfeiture of earnings in agriculture. Can we prevent further corrosion of the environment by the extracted salt? Yes! Throw it into the sea where it belongs. The situation is 'watery' ironic. Water is irrefutably the most common existence on Earth, yet the perennial cry is that it is short. The fact and irony is that Jamaica is surrounded by water. At this time, the NWC is applying its restrictions as people drive over and alongside water to jostle to buy water tanks. I invite us as a nation to be the regional leader in implementing and promoting effective, efficient desalination.
Hensley Pink
Lampard, Clarendon
h_s_pink@yahoo.com
Why not desalination?
-->