28 May 2009

Please Comment on My Paper on the Delta

The Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education (a publication of the Universities Council on Water Resources) has asked me to write a paper about water transfers, with a specific focus on the Delta.

I have posted a SECOND draft of the paper here [pdf].

If you have the time (and inclination) to make any comments, I would be grateful.

In particular, I am interested in errors, omissions, misjudgements and mischaracterizations.

Please leave comments on the paper as comments to this post. (It is possible to leave anonymous comments!) That will save others the effort of pointing out mistakes that you have already found. Please also use the line numbers included in the pdf to make it easier for us to communicate.

Also note that the paper is due next Monday (June 1), so you need to act quickly if you want me to consider your thoughts. (Thanks for the thoughts AND acting quickly!)


Fixed Carbon said...

David: Brilliant and very well written. This could be a chapter in your book. Complemented by, say 10 other essays deployed as chapters, you would have the book. My only suggestion is, at about line 100, to make brief reference to a richer history of California ag and water demands than just pre and post WWII. You could ref the Gianinni Special report, or something similar. "Fightn' fer" California water preceded WWII.

Kevin Dick said...

I think this is a pretty good paper. I imagine some will find it quite provocative. I of course think it's simply good economics.

I would suggest the following changes.

I would put a summary table of stakeholders and their positions in Section 2.

adopted->adapted in 3.1

Section 3 needs more set up and tying back to the main thesis. I found myself wondering how the sub sections fit into the overall argument. Perhaps a longer introduction and then a liaison sentence at the beginning and end of each sub section. Or maybe get rid of it altogether because it seems superfluous.

Section 4.4 is the heart of your argument from what I can tell. It should be much longer. In particular, I recommend (1) do a little more set up on how it's always easy to take the moral high ground and advocate spending other people's money, (2) tie the reasoning back to the stakeholders, (3) break the calculations into bullet points so they're easier to parse, (4) do three different outcome scenarios with a summary table, and (5) do a full closing paragraph about the implications of these scenarios for people's "true" preferences.