6 ms·

Have to wonder why the tie-in to overseas trade in an article about wells running dry. Feels more like stoking outrage over foreigners than drought.

by ianai 4y ago

LatteLazy 4y ago
Agreed. We can do shitty shortsighted things for money, but foreign money is "dirty"!?
im-a-baby 4y ago
Why do countries exist? To protect the interests of the citizens. Water is an important issue
simonsarris 4y ago
Depleting an underground reservoir is a matter of national security. Doing it to sell alfalfa to another country is off the charts a matter of national security.
- sbarre 4y ago
  Would it be different if the farm was American-owned, but still growing alfalfa and selling it to another country? Are you suggesting export controls on vegetables?
  - ianai 4y ago
    Also the US long ago decided to make international trade a point of ensuring and reinforcing national security. Marshall plan and all that.
  - red_trumpet 4y ago
    How about restricting the amount of water one is allowed to extract from the aquifer?
    - btown 4y ago
      This. We already nationally regulate crop rotation to protect against erosion and disease, which can have effects beyond the boundaries of any given farm or owner: https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/crop-rotation-practice-standard https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/crop-rotation-prac.... It seems reasonable to me that access to an aquifer which also goes beyond the boundaries of any given farm would be a reasonable thing to regulate as well. And it's important for policymakers to have the context that international trade considerations have introduced incentives to the region that may not have been present beforehand - as a result, one should not simply say "we never needed to regulate this before" because there are material changes to the situation.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    Are you suggesting this is not a problem, regardless the labels and frameworks currently available to describe it or address it? But sure, we can declare any kind of export control we determine a state interest in. Other people can play even better word games than you just tried to, to articulate both the problem and a response. You didn't show how it's an invalid idea at all.
    - pjc50 4y ago
      As a non-American, I love how America is about individual freedom and the right to earn a living right up until the point where nationalism is invoked and everyone's back to advocating that the government confiscate farms.
      - vitiral 4y ago
        Some more coherent theories of ownership (geo libertarian) do not consider resources like land, ore or water to be individually owned - but rather owned "in common." Under such a theory this issue actually is regarding individual freedom.
      - foobazgt 4y ago
        As an American, I feel like you're missing the point. Generally the expectation is that you have the freedom to do anything you want as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others. Of course, there's a lot of nuance buried there, but that's the general principle. I think it's a good framework.
      - Brian_K_White 4y ago
        There are all kinds of potential ways to address this or any other problem besides confiscating a farm, and even confiscating a farm doesn't necessarily have to violate any individual freedom principles, since nothing is pure. There has always been eminent domain.
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        In the case of farms that rely on fossil aquifers, there is no way to address the problem other than shutting the farm down completely. If the farm relies on an unsustainable source of water, then it doesn't matter if the farm is owned by Americans or foreigners; it isn't sustainable no matter what.
- joshe 4y ago
  our malnourished cavalry horses!
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  ...no matter who is doing it. Are we to believe the water usage would be less if Americans owned the ground?
nkurz 4y ago
A point probably worth making, but article is aware enough to consider it already: With all of this, Gary Saiter doesn't care if the farm is owned by a company overseas. The way he sees it, it doesn't make much of a difference who owns the farm; he just wishes they were better neighbors. "I am kind of ambivalent about the Saudis," Saiter said. "You can't control where people sell stuff, and it's going to go somewhere." "I just don't like the crops they're growing and the water they're pumping," he added.
- ianai 4y ago
  I’m pointing out the editorializing implicit in the framing. Apparently groundwater is used for crops all throughout Mexico and the southwest. I definitely wish it weren’t the case and instead a national water grid like how we have national power.
  - me_again 4y ago
    Interestingly, the US doesn't have a true national power grid. https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/us-grid-regions https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/us-grid-regions The practical difficulty of transporting large amounts of water long distances is even worse than electricity, so I don't think it'll ever be easy to say "Minnesota has a water surplus this year, let's just adjust the pipes to send it to Nevada".
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > a national water grid Awful idea. Why should the wet parts of the country pump their water into deserts where people shouldn't be living/working in the first place? If people want to live in deserts, let them find their own water. No other region should be obliged to supplement their unsustainable desert lifestyle. Let nature take her course and depopulate those deserts in due time. If you want water, move to where the water is.
    - richk449 4y ago
      Why don’t we apply that logic to other things? If you want carrots, move to where the carrots are grown. If you want a car, move near a car factory. You want oil? Move to Saudi Arabia. Everyone benefits from specialization and trade. I don’t see any reason it wouldn’t apply to water too.

Have to wonder why the tie-in to overseas trade in an article about wells running dry. Feels more like stoking outrage over foreigners than drought.

by ianai 4y ago

Have to wonder why the tie-in to overseas trade in an article about wells running dry. Feels more like stoking outrage over foreigners than drought.

LatteLazy 4y ago

Agreed. We can do shitty shortsighted things for money, but foreign money is "dirty"!?

im-a-baby 4y ago

Why do countries exist? To protect the interests of the citizens. Water is an important issue

simonsarris 4y ago

Depleting an underground reservoir is a matter of national security. Doing it to sell alfalfa to another country is off the charts a matter of national security.

sbarre 4y ago
Would it be different if the farm was American-owned, but still growing alfalfa and selling it to another country? Are you suggesting export controls on vegetables?
- ianai 4y ago
  Also the US long ago decided to make international trade a point of ensuring and reinforcing national security. Marshall plan and all that.
- red_trumpet 4y ago
  How about restricting the amount of water one is allowed to extract from the aquifer?
  - btown 4y ago
    This. We already nationally regulate crop rotation to protect against erosion and disease, which can have effects beyond the boundaries of any given farm or owner: https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/crop-rotation-practice-standard https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/crop-rotation-prac.... It seems reasonable to me that access to an aquifer which also goes beyond the boundaries of any given farm would be a reasonable thing to regulate as well. And it's important for policymakers to have the context that international trade considerations have introduced incentives to the region that may not have been present beforehand - as a result, one should not simply say "we never needed to regulate this before" because there are material changes to the situation.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  Are you suggesting this is not a problem, regardless the labels and frameworks currently available to describe it or address it? But sure, we can declare any kind of export control we determine a state interest in. Other people can play even better word games than you just tried to, to articulate both the problem and a response. You didn't show how it's an invalid idea at all.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    As a non-American, I love how America is about individual freedom and the right to earn a living right up until the point where nationalism is invoked and everyone's back to advocating that the government confiscate farms.
    - vitiral 4y ago
      Some more coherent theories of ownership (geo libertarian) do not consider resources like land, ore or water to be individually owned - but rather owned "in common." Under such a theory this issue actually is regarding individual freedom.
    - foobazgt 4y ago
      As an American, I feel like you're missing the point. Generally the expectation is that you have the freedom to do anything you want as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others. Of course, there's a lot of nuance buried there, but that's the general principle. I think it's a good framework.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      There are all kinds of potential ways to address this or any other problem besides confiscating a farm, and even confiscating a farm doesn't necessarily have to violate any individual freedom principles, since nothing is pure. There has always been eminent domain.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        In the case of farms that rely on fossil aquifers, there is no way to address the problem other than shutting the farm down completely. If the farm relies on an unsustainable source of water, then it doesn't matter if the farm is owned by Americans or foreigners; it isn't sustainable no matter what.
joshe 4y ago
our malnourished cavalry horses!
JoeAltmaier 4y ago
...no matter who is doing it. Are we to believe the water usage would be less if Americans owned the ground?

nkurz 4y ago

A point probably worth making, but article is aware enough to consider it already: With all of this, Gary Saiter doesn't care if the farm is owned by a company overseas. The way he sees it, it doesn't make much of a difference who owns the farm; he just wishes they were better neighbors. "I am kind of ambivalent about the Saudis," Saiter said. "You can't control where people sell stuff, and it's going to go somewhere." "I just don't like the crops they're growing and the water they're pumping," he added.

ianai 4y ago
I’m pointing out the editorializing implicit in the framing. Apparently groundwater is used for crops all throughout Mexico and the southwest. I definitely wish it weren’t the case and instead a national water grid like how we have national power.
- me_again 4y ago
  Interestingly, the US doesn't have a true national power grid. https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/us-grid-regions https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/us-grid-regions The practical difficulty of transporting large amounts of water long distances is even worse than electricity, so I don't think it'll ever be easy to say "Minnesota has a water surplus this year, let's just adjust the pipes to send it to Nevada".
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > a national water grid Awful idea. Why should the wet parts of the country pump their water into deserts where people shouldn't be living/working in the first place? If people want to live in deserts, let them find their own water. No other region should be obliged to supplement their unsustainable desert lifestyle. Let nature take her course and depopulate those deserts in due time. If you want water, move to where the water is.
  - richk449 4y ago
    Why don’t we apply that logic to other things? If you want carrots, move to where the carrots are grown. If you want a car, move near a car factory. You want oil? Move to Saudi Arabia. Everyone benefits from specialization and trade. I don’t see any reason it wouldn’t apply to water too.