Killing the Colorado

[Wade]

I heard about this on the radio this morning and though it comes as no surprise to us, some of the talking points that have come up as sound bites of late...those damned water hogging almonds for example... while not entirely innocent, don't paint the whole picture, they are merely used as smoke screen for the real cause, mismanagement. I thought it made for interesting viewing.

An earlier report I read either in the Atlantic or New York Magazine had a passage where water thirsty realtively low yield crop farmers were starting to square off against cattle ranchers whose livestock and the crops they consumed were more likely to blame both sides probably had a point but it was easier to blame each other than give in to the fact that the water rights have to be reconsidered.

From what little i have fully read up on, and not just from this site. my first impression is our current predicament (for those of us in the west) is due more to archaic and arcane water laws; using formulas that never made sense and these formulas likely favored those who had the most power and money and have since gone on to squander these resources.

"...As serious as the drought is, the investigation found that mismanagement of that region’s surprisingly ample supply has led to today’s emergency. Among the causes are the planting of the thirstiest crops; arcane and outdated water rights laws; the unchecked urban development in unsustainable desert environments; and the misplaced confidence in human ingenuity to engineer our way out of a crisis — with dams and canals, tunnels and pipelines..."

"...The river that sustains 40 million Americans is dying — and man, not nature, is to blame..."

And before I forget, shame on Magnum P.I.

Killing the Colorado - ProPublica

 

[Wade]

From

How to respond to drought’s political, economic realities: Tim Rutten

"...For many urban residents, California's farmers now are the whipping boys of choice. It's true that agriculture and conservation account for 80 percent of all the state's annual water use. Almonds and alfalfa are the crops toward which fingers usually point; it takes a gallon of water to grow an almond - 70 percent of which are exported - and more than 30 percent of the alfalfa grown in the Imperial Valley is exported to Japan, China, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States..."

And http://www.thedesertreview.com/impe...tical-for-california-essential-for-the-world/

"...The drought effects California in its entirely, but with the water the Imperial Valley receives from the Colorado River, they supply farmers up north with much needed feed for their beef cattle and dairies.

Much of the hay produced is shipped to Central Valley and Northern California.

The hay market is accessible to anyone in California as well as the rest of the United States.

There’s been an argument made for quite some time that farmers in the Imperial Valley sent their hay to places like China and Saudi Arabia because the cost is cheaper to send it there, creating a bigger profit for the farmers.

A truck delivering hay from the Imperial County to somewhere up north like the San Joaquin Valley costs about the same as to ship the hay from the Valley to Long Beach, then to China by boat.

The reason being, the United States imports almost everything, such as electronics and clothing, from countries like China. Conversely, we export almost nothing to China. Most everything Americans consume comes as an import from other countries.

After those barges finish unloading products from China, they return with an empty cargo hull, no American exports are making the trip to the East.

This creates an opportunity to ship produce, grain, and feed on those boats at a highly discounted price.

Imperial Valley farmers take advantage of the trade imbalance, they see it as an opportunity to export their product at a low price.

Therefore, the cost of exporting hay to other countries and sending it to other parts of California is about the same.

Where the hay ends up is based on who’s buying it. There’s no incentive to send hay to other countries instead of areas in the United States, because the payout is the same, either way..."

What these reports fail to mention is in some cases these crops are being sent to places like China, India and Saudi Arabia are because the land is LEASED to them in the first place so it's THEIR yields and arguably their water underneath them belongs to them. Saudi Arabia figured out some time ago their oil money was best used for buying fertile land overseas and shipping their product to them rather then try to grow farm land and or dig for wells, China's with their new found prosperity took the same tact for their rice..."water hungry" wouldn't you know... to feed an ever growing population that can't be sustained internally

From Drought in California: A Much Bigger Problem Than You Think


"...The largest conflict regarding land and water use in recent history happened when the government announced it would begin to lease up to 3 million hectares of land to other countries, including Saudi Arabia, China, and India. Indigenous farmers objected to being kicked off ancestral lands, though companies like Saudi Star claimed they would bring schools and other resources to the natives in return for using the land for their own agricultural purposes. Some of the leases, or “investments,” are reportedly used for rice farming, one of the most water-intensive crops there is..."


As you can see from the links there are even less fortunate countries than the US that ship their crops overseas for legal reasons that have less say or pull than the US

 

[Burnt State]

Will we go to war over water? People are already killing for water. Numerous global water treaties are dysfunctional. But what I find to be even more disturbing is the amount of time wasted debating climate change while the bees are dying, as water evaporates. We've chosen instead to bicker, kick the dirt, yell with indignance and chosen to do little. I really hope the smug folk in leadership who still feel self-righteous about killing time debating whether or not to do anything pay deep political prices. In our lifetimes we will see a major alteration in defining the value of water and the other resources we use to feed people.

 

[Burnt State]

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/u-s-firm-sues-canada-for-10-5-billion-over-water-1.180821

Speaking of water. This is an interesting turn of events.

 

[Wade]

Do I foresee a little can kicking down the road?

Massive El Niño growing, say models

 

[DaveM]

The problem is not lack of water. We have too many people that the ecosystem can't support. In 1900 the estimate was we had 1.6 billion people on the Earth. The estimate is now 7.2 billion people. You do the math. You have finite resources and a quadrupling of people in a little over 100 years.

No one wants to talk about overpopulation except maybe the Chinese and it is too late for them. Until humans address the real problem there will be wars over water, food and resources.

 

[Burnt State]

The problem is not lack of water. We have too many people that the ecosystem can't support. In 1900 the estimate was we had 1.6 billion people on the Earth. The estimate is now 7.2 billion people. You do the math. You have finite resources and a quadrupling of people in a little over 100 years.

No one wants to talk about overpopulation except maybe the Chinese and it is too late for them. Until humans address the real problem there will be wars over water, food and resources.

It's an interesting perspective that could eventually lead to a eugenics Ayn Randian-Koch model that is possibly native to capitalist economies. But I wonder, if we chose to both care for our drinkable water, which is something like only 3-5% of the water on the planet, and use it more responsibly,as opposed to watering lawns with it, I wonder just how many folk this planet could care for easily? We're an incredibly wasteful and irresponsible civilization with a lot of potential, short sighted and graceful, we kings and pretty things.