Give water to urban centers, not farmers

To the editor:

When the Boulder Canyon Project Act was being considered in 1928, U.S. Sen. Carl Hayden, D-Ariz., said that "if there is not enough water to go around" for irrigation and city use, "the city shall have the preference."

This means that if Nevada needs more Colorado River water for its urban population, it should be able to take it from farmers in California or Arizona as needed "for public use." This could and should be accomplished through the Fifth Amendment, which bans the taking of "private property ... for public use without just compensation."

The water being used by farmers, including those on Indian reservations, probably is considered "private property" in that it is being used under contract with the U.S. Department of the Interior. Most of the Colorado River water in California is being used there in accordance with state law. In Arizona, because of the crazed majority decision in Arizona v. California by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963, the interior secretary decides who gets the water instead of Arizona law.

Nonetheless, the first priority for use of Colorado River water was intended to be the population.

The apparent reason Nevada won't take this Fifth Amendment route (has it been considered?) for filling its water needs is that it doesn't want to get in an extended fight with California and Arizona interests.

That's a mistake. The question of who has the first priority, urban populations or farmers, should be settled now, not in the future.

Earl Zarbin

Phoenix

Jet follies

To the editor:

In his Friday commentary, "Yachts, planes, cynicism and stupidity," Walter E. Williams takes President Obama to task for his comments on corporate jets. Too bad Mr. Williams didn't research the topic more fully. If he had, he would have praised the president for rightly criticizing one of the most egregious loopholes in the current tax code -- a textbook example of how corporations can earn billions in profit, yet pay no tax.

According to David Cay Johnston in his expose of the U.S. tax system, "Perfectly Legal," special treatment for executive travel on corporate aircraft was added to the tax code in 1985.

Under the new rules, executives who use corporate jets for personal travel are taxed on this perk at the price of a first-class ticket, half of that if they file a letter with the IRS noting that private jet travel is required for "security reasons."

Operating corporate jets is very expensive, even for personal trips. Yet the new rules classify these costs as deductible business expenses. An example demonstrates this loophole's outrageousness.

Suppose a CEO wants to jet to Aspen for a ski weekend and a first-class ticket on a commercial carrier is $1,000. The tax he owes for this executive perk is about $180 (36 percent of the $500 perk valuation under the "security" rule). The actual cost of the flight to the company is $10,000. The company deducts this from its profits for tax savings of $3,500.

In this single transaction, a CEO's pleasure trip cost the country $3,320 in tax revenue -- money that could be used to reduce the deficit. As Mr. Johnston stated, "It would be cheaper for the taxpayers to give away first-class tickets [than] subsidize ... personal use of corporate jets."

Yet, Mr. Williams condemns the president for wanting to eliminate this giveaway.

And the Republicans? They have decided that protecting this and all tax loopholes is more important than reducing the deficit, rejecting the opportunity for an additional reduction of $1.4 trillion.

Luckily, most Americans stand with President Obama in desiring a balanced approach to deficit reduction. It's just common sense.

Bart Atwell

Las Vegas