🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <34o41l$cau@agate.berkeley.edu> 
gpast@uclink.berkeley.edu (Gregory Brian Pasternack) writes:

[ WRT Cadillac Desert, by Marc Reisner ]

> 
>Since I want to *use* valid numbers (about water projects) for economic
>and hydrologic analysis, I want to look up the sources to see the techniques
>used to derive the figures.  Also, these other sources might include
>information that Reisner couldn't or wouldn't include, but which might be
>of interest to me.  Summary tables, graphs, figures, etc would be a useful
>addition to the book, too (while I'm at it). 
> 

Have you finished the book?  There's a 44 page bibliography, in which is
included 'The California Water Atlas', containing more tables, graphs
and figures than one person could digest in a lifetime.  Complaining
that 'Cadillac Desert' doesn't contain enough data is like complaining
that the sunday paper doesn't contain Roget's Theaurus -- that's not
it's purpose. 

Your sense that Reisner's book is not a dispassionate scientific document
is certainly correct -- Reisner is highly opinionated and I disagree with 
many parts of his book.  He definitely has opinions regarding the Bureau
of Reclamation, water marketing, agricultural water use, and the federal 
goverment's role in all this, but he certainly provides plenty of pointers 
to the sources upon which he bases his arguements.

As regards your original inquiry, 'Cadillac Desert' is required reading
in two hydrology masters programs that I know of, so at least some
scholars in the hydrologic sciences consider it worthy of their students
perusal.

> 
> ..., but an explanation of how the numbers are derived for
>water projects goes beyond what any layperson can understand without
>having taken a course in hydrology and perhaps a few others.  Understanding
>aside, the details in these water project stories are so grueling that
>to compile them all in one book would turn it into a multi-volume set!  For
>the purposes of an overview, I think citations *in the body of the text*
>are (appropriate and) enough.  The bottom line for me is that it is a shame
>that a book presenting itself as "the way it was" brushes away its own
>citation trail as if it had something to hide.
>

I can only conclude that you didn't look at Reisner's bibliograpy, where
he explicitly examines his sources for each chapter.   True, some of
those sources are interviews and bureau files, but there's gobs of references
if you are really interested in primary sources.  The style of the 
book is basically anecdotal and geared toward popular consumption, so I
think asking for in-text citations is a bit much.   I agree that the
agenda driven tone and redundant indictments of the Bureau of Rec. get
a little old, but you seem to be suggesting intellectual dishonesty,
which I did not detect at all.

The main points that I disagree with Reisner on (as I recall, it's been
a while since I read it) regard water marketing and ag use, which are 
questions of policy, not data interpretation.  What is it that you think 
he's hiding?

Bob Harrington
bobh@hwr.arizona.edu