5 ms·

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

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?

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?