Saturday, March 31, 2012

I'd rather have a waterpark than use water in fracking

In Laredo, this is currently called a mirage.

I'll keep it simple. With so many unlikely projects taking off in Laredo, I still say a waterpark makes a lot more sense than many of them.  Laredo is one of the hottest places in the country, one of the dryest. OK, so you say- exactly : we can't afford to use water for leisure. I would tend to agree with such a statement if South Texas was not currently using millions upon millions of gallons of water in fracking for oil and gas.

On top of using vast amounts of water, there is so much pollution going on. Of course, the oil and gas people paint a pretty picture and run commercials with pristine lakes and unspoiled land: the very aspects of nature that their quest for riches is ruining.

So, a water park should be brought up in the discussion for projects our city should seriously consider. If the "too much water" argument comes up, then fine- how do you justify the waste of precious water in fracking?  Of course, the mayor and virtually everyone else willl cry out "JOBS!".  Yes, jobs are being created but at what price?

If we had a waterpark for Laredoans to enjoy and cool off in, at least I could tell the mayor and seedy council to go jump in the lake...make that in the pool.


  1. I don't think the water park idea was shot down due to water restrictions (the water is reused and only loses water to evaporation), it has always been the economics of wheter a water park would pay for itself.

    Private investors have said the idea is not viable. So, if the city, or county wants to build one, it would have to fund the operational cost, or make a deal to do so, like the arena or ballpark. So far, they have not made that leap.

  2. Sorry for the poor spelling this early in the a.m.

  3. A water park is not a good idea right now considering the way we casually waste water. I mean, forget about the fracking activity for a while, and just look at how there's no push towards conservation, no push towards xeriscaping, and no enforcement for people and businesses who waste water.

    The city doesn't urge us to conserve when record droughts are believed to continue. You should see the water level at Lake Casa Blanca.

    But OK. Let's say a water park can re-use its water supply (until somebody takes a dump in the pool). Will people be able to afford the $10-per-person admission fee, and the $5 concession stand snacks every weekend? All our money goes to Taco Palenque and Lotto tickets already.


  4. I understand KR but when it's 105 or hotter day after day after day, people will happily pay $10 (it might be more)and, as always, Laredoans will sneak it concessions of their own. I mean come on, does the Lemurs make sense? NO! It's about time that everday Laredoans get a chance to get out of couch potato land in the Summer.

    As far as conservation, Yes, we can do that- Xeriscaping- yes. Other cities have a waterpark and conservation measures in place. They do not necessarily exclude each other out. Pero, si, I no- on the surface and maybe below-it's a pretty hard sell.

    But what else sounds as inviting as cool, refreshing pools of water during the scorching Laredo heat?

  5. Hey, speaking from the perspective of the couch-potato you mention, Maximilano, I represent that!

  6. This is America. If you believe a water park will work then gather some money and put it to use. Just look down the river in Edinburgh to see how well the water park worked there. If it didn't work in a metropolitan area with over one million people what makes ou think it would work here. Water park out.

  7. Edinburg is too close to the beach-Laredo is not. Water park back in.