OK, I started reading the article, and then found this gem:
> The Kansas aqueduct is a nutty idea, but one that has taken root among some individuals in western Kansas desperate for a solution to continue irrigation after the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer. Aside from its expense and impracticality, it is a regressive idea that harkens back to the days of ditches and avoids a conversation about us having squandered the resource beneath our feet.
Like, WTF? How the hell a "conversation" can solve the depletion issue? An aqueduct is a possible solution, yet it's bad because it can solve the issue?
> The Kansas aqueduct is a nutty idea, but one that has taken root among some individuals in western Kansas desperate for a solution to continue irrigation after the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer. Aside from its expense and impracticality, it is a regressive idea that harkens back to the days of ditches and avoids a conversation about us having squandered the resource beneath our feet.
Like, WTF? How the hell a "conversation" can solve the depletion issue? An aqueduct is a possible solution, yet it's bad because it can solve the issue?