4 ms·

Saudi Arabia Using 140-Year-Old Loophole to Soak Up California's Scarce Water

10 points by Jerry2 8y ago

anigbrowl 8y ago
The town is home to 21,000 people – 6,000 of whom are incarcerated in one of the town’s two state prisons. “The prisons were supposed to bring economic development to the city,” Echard told me on our way back from the dam as we sped alongside one of the primary canals. “But it hasn’t done much at all.” Side note, but while prisons don't generate all that much economic activity they count for congressional apportionment while the residents can't vote, so that's 6000 fewer people you need to worry about on election day if you're a politician.
mc32 8y ago
In this case SA isn’t doing anything unlawful. Heck, other international companies grow in California too, what’s the big deal? If they want to disallow water to be diverted to farming, that’s one thing, but singling one entity in this whole deal seems to be odd.
- gotocake 8y ago
  I think “loophole” already covers the fact that this is technically legal. The issue raised in TFA is a question of whether or not this should be legal.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > In this case SA isn’t doing anything unlawful. That's why the article is calling attention to the “140-year-old loophole” that is being exploited. > If they want to disallow water to be diverted to farming, that’s one thing, but singling one entity in this whole deal seems to be odd. They are singling out a federal grant from when the part of California involved was essentially uninhabited and the Colorado River wasn't heavily used that gives unlimited, no-usage-charge water to users in the particular locality where the Saudi farm is located.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
adrianmonk 8y ago
How is it a loophole? Is the loophole that you can export food? California exports a lot of food, apparently $20 billion/year worth of it (see https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/ https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/). Is there a reason why this food should be different? Is the loophole that a foreign company owns the farms? There's a lot of foreign investment in other industries in California (and everywhere). Is there a reason why this industry should be different? I'm just not seeing what is unique about this.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  The loophole is in the flat rate for water access on that tract of land.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > How is it a loophole? The “140-year-old loophole” is the free-of-charge 1877 federal unquantified water rights grant in Blythe, which they (among others) are exploiting.

10 points by Jerry2 8y ago

The town is home to 21,000 people – 6,000 of whom are incarcerated in one of the town’s two state prisons. “The prisons were supposed to bring economic development to the city,” Echard told me on our way back from the dam as we sped alongside one of the primary canals. “But it hasn’t done much at all.” Side note, but while prisons don't generate all that much economic activity they count for congressional apportionment while the residents can't vote, so that's 6000 fewer people you need to worry about on election day if you're a politician.

mc32 8y ago

In this case SA isn’t doing anything unlawful. Heck, other international companies grow in California too, what’s the big deal? If they want to disallow water to be diverted to farming, that’s one thing, but singling one entity in this whole deal seems to be odd.

gotocake 8y ago
I think “loophole” already covers the fact that this is technically legal. The issue raised in TFA is a question of whether or not this should be legal.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> In this case SA isn’t doing anything unlawful. That's why the article is calling attention to the “140-year-old loophole” that is being exploited. > If they want to disallow water to be diverted to farming, that’s one thing, but singling one entity in this whole deal seems to be odd. They are singling out a federal grant from when the part of California involved was essentially uninhabited and the Colorado River wasn't heavily used that gives unlimited, no-usage-charge water to users in the particular locality where the Saudi farm is located.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

adrianmonk 8y ago

How is it a loophole? Is the loophole that you can export food? California exports a lot of food, apparently $20 billion/year worth of it (see https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/ https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/). Is there a reason why this food should be different? Is the loophole that a foreign company owns the farms? There's a lot of foreign investment in other industries in California (and everywhere). Is there a reason why this industry should be different? I'm just not seeing what is unique about this.

anigbrowl 8y ago
The loophole is in the flat rate for water access on that tract of land.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> How is it a loophole? The “140-year-old loophole” is the free-of-charge 1877 federal unquantified water rights grant in Blythe, which they (among others) are exploiting.