BajaNomad - Article: Is Large-Scale Organic Farming Sustainable in Baja?

Article: Is Large-Scale Organic Farming Sustainable in Baja?

jakecard - 12-30-2011 at 08:26 PM

At the intersection of local commerce, corporate profits, U.S. consumer demand and environmental stress:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/science/earth/questions-ab...

Do you think it is more important to save Baja's aquifers, or to allow capitalism to run its draining course?

Jake

jakecard

captkw - 12-30-2011 at 08:50 PM

the aquifers are running on empty,,I am not a expert on this,,that said,,they dug some deep well's near constotution a while back,(lots of ag) and all I hear from old time familiy's, south is the well,, the family used for 100's of year's is the dryest,,and btw have you seen the golf green's in the "corrador" ?? makes ,ya wanna cry !! if that is progress,,we are all in the deep doo,doo,,this is MY thought's Keith & lil tasha :cool:

[Edited on 12-31-2011 by captkw]

Mengano - 12-30-2011 at 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jakecard
Do you think it is more important to save Baja's aquifers, or to allow capitalism to run its draining course?
Jake

What precisely are you saving Baja's aquifers for? What is the problem with Capitalism? Those capitalists are growing food for a profit and are shipping it to the US so people can eat. How is that bad?

Is water in the ground more valuable than food in your stomach?

Islandbuilder - 12-30-2011 at 09:35 PM

Seems like the availability of CHEAP good water is central to profitable farming. If fuel prices rise, and water becomes more expensive, we consumers will have to restrict our food purchases to stuff more locally produced.
Right now we can afford to buy exotic vegitables and fruits shipped in from all over the world, but I can see a time, not too long from now, when we will have to simplify and limit our food selections due to price.
In other words, I don't think that there is any difference between the water and the produce. It is a poor business plan to exhaust a resource that is essential to your production. Much better to dramatically reduce production and thus both raise prices and extend the life span of your operation.

Like OPEC does with oil.

ahh,,amen !!!

captkw - 12-30-2011 at 10:05 PM

Mengano - 12-30-2011 at 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Islandbuilder
Much better to dramatically reduce production and thus both raise prices and extend the life span of your operation.

And therefore shorten the lifespan of billions who will starve from either lack of or affordability of food.

Great plan!

Islandbuilder - 12-30-2011 at 11:14 PM

Thank you.

You must not believe that the water issue is valid, otherwise you surely are smart enough to realize that running out of water = no industrial food production = billions dead. Right?

I'm sit well to the right of most of the GOP, and am still an advocate of sustainablity. It's just good business in the long term, you know, the sort of time frame that builds cultures that last, rather than the short term gains that result in Congressional hearings.

Also, do you think that strawberries are sustaintaining billions of people? Or is that the job of the Iceberg Lettuce? :spingrin:

Mengano - 12-31-2011 at 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Islandbuilder
You must not believe that the water issue is valid, otherwise you surely are smart enough to realize that running out of water = no industrial food production = billions dead. Right?

Wrong. We don't have a water issue. We have a fresh water issue. 70% of the planet is covered with water. There is the same amount of water on Earth now as there was a few billion years ago. Leaving the water in an aquifer will not change the total amount of water on the planet.

Water is not a fossil fuel that once used never comes back. Water recycles itself. Do you understand you lumped water in with oil, while failing to recognize it not a depleting resource?

What we need is to produce more fresh water, not conserve water in aquifers and not grow food. Ever heard of large scale reverse osmosis desalination plants? If you co- locate the non-existent RO plants with the non-existent nuclear power plants the environmentalists refuse to be allowed built, they will produce cheap fresh water.

h2o

captkw - 12-31-2011 at 05:41 AM

only 2 percent of the water on my planet is fit to drink,per nat.geo,,last year they did a almost whole issue on the subject and a good read,, and water is fast becoming a issue in the usa,water right's,salt water intrusion,pollution,ag runoff are starting to rear it's ugly head in calif,,and baja ,,well,,lets just say,,no matter what you want to argue,, baja,,is a dry place,,that is not up for debate !! and Reverse omo. is still in it's infancy and is not a silver bullet,there is a VERY little bit of ag in baja,like constution,todo santo's,la riberia....but ,, for some reason a couple of gringo's lately ,,seem to think hey,,let's start a farm in baja,and bla,bla,bla...what is up with that ?? go over to the main land,, where in some state's,, they really have water...I have thought the proper name for baja,, should have been SECO...K&T my 2 centovo's

[Edited on 12-31-2011 by captkw]

[Edited on 12-31-2011 by captkw]

[Edited on 12-31-2011 by captkw]

Osprey - 12-31-2011 at 07:54 AM

It's all about recharge. That million year fossil water took a very long time to seep down, form a pool. You take it out, it still stays on the planet but it might take many millenia to get back down there. The conundrum might be that you must resort to burning non renewable fossil fuel to make water available faster by desal. Can't eat cotton so that might be something to think about when planning the next best thing >> make better use of what you got.

wessongroup - 12-31-2011 at 08:08 AM

Whiskey is for drinking ... water is for fighting ... good luck on this one ...

Cardon Man - 12-31-2011 at 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mengano

What precisely are you saving Baja's aquifers for? What is the problem with Capitalism? Those capitalists are growing food for a profit and are shipping it to the US so people can eat. How is that bad?

Is water in the ground more valuable than food in your stomach?

Could you possibly be any more devoid of rational thought?

gnukid - 12-31-2011 at 08:45 AM

Not to start a fight, but to spark an idea, this is not a personal attack on the posters but a discussion about resources and infrastructure.

If there is a theme of this thread it appears to be scarcity in reference to water and fuel, along with the assumption that overtime the scarcity will become worse, based on the the idea that oil and water are limited and we are not increasing our ability to produce water and fuel, while in fact we are increasing production, though we may need to work smarter.

The issue isn't necessarily scarcity, it's production, management and infrastructure. There is plenty of fresh water, it's just not where you want it, currently in the north stored in snow pack in lakes and rivers, yet this water can be transferred via a dependable infrastructure, such as a pipe line, or tankers, in addition to extracting water from the air and collections such as the the ocean.

In reference to Baja, it has been noted in various studies over the recent decades, that the water infrastructure is deficient, without solutions to store and transport water efficiently not to mention it's often leaking.

If as a community, we focused our energies and intellect on building an infrastructure to transport and store water efficiently we would not have scarcity as a theme.

To address infrastructure, we must be aware of who has historically been responsible for water and who has failed to build infrastructure, while in turn profiting from scarcity. Note that corporations and government are not adequately building and managing water infrastructure while at the same time they are responsible for poisoning the water dumping chemicals and munitions into water sources, while profiting from this process and scarcity.

One would conclude water resource is not being well managed by those entrusted to manage it, therefore, individuals and communities must take interest in and invest in water planning and infrastructure and improve water management or suffer from poor management.

Oil reserves are increasing over the last 40 years not reducing. We do not have accurate accounting of all oil reserves and as well the scarcity of oil is also a profitable subject to promote. Few are apparently willing to engage in thoughtful discussion about oil, it's origins, source, and understand oil as an efficient fuel in comparison to "green" energy.

If we consider the possible scenarios, it's possible that both oil and water are scarce or that they are not scarce. It's possible they are limited or that that they are a constant continuous biological outcome of the earth functioning as it does. Simply put we may have only one problem, oil and water are plentiful though the location is far from some people. Those people can move or we can move the oil and water to the people.

There is very little, if any, actual evidence that either water or oil are actually scarce or limited on earth, though the concept is heavily promoted and manufactured for profit. Think infrastructure and storage.

water

captkw - 12-31-2011 at 08:55 AM

gukid,,wow,,that's a post !!uuummm all Im,gonna say is,,baja is rather, dry,no?? and from the rancher's that I've talked with,these later year's,,Have shared the same story of well's drying up,,and all have said,,"it's the first time,that has happend" just saying !! K&T :cool:

wilderone - 12-31-2011 at 08:59 AM

"Could you possibly be any more devoid of rational thought?"
Amen on that.

Only a matter of time before not only the crops will no longer be grown, but all the people inhabiting the region will have to move for lack of water. Anasazi and Maya: Their decline and ultimate demise was founded upon exactly what is described in that article. Dust Bowl lessons? The questions presented are not new - been 'round and 'round the block on this several times - and the result will not be any different.

gnukid - 12-31-2011 at 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by captkw
gukid,,wow,,that's a post !!uuummm all Im,gonna say is,,baja is rather, dry,no?? and from the rancher's that I've talked with,these later year's,,Have shared the same story of well's drying up,,and all have said,,"it's the first time,that has happend" just saying !! K&T :cool:

Yes, of course, though if one were to consider the issues with an open mind and critical thought one would consider there are many things which can and will change:

Climate/weather could change for baja (likely)
Water use can change (likely)
Water production can change (likely)
Water storage and infrastructure can change (likely)
Food production can change (likely)

We are sharing ideas to grow food at each house or camp, using more practical processes we have huge gardens on the rooftops and even on the beach having dug out a pit and replaced he soil with a plastic liner below, there is a great deal of moisture in the air that is certainly useable at the water front, obviously the cactus use it.

Do you ever notice water on your windshield in the morning?

One example to draw from are natural plastic hothouses that collect humidity on the internal roof and channel this into channels to feed plants. These are in use in the middle east and we have built similar units here, just as we have built solar water heaters, and other process to put water were we need it.

Instead of a pollyanna view one must use your cognitive ability to think about and create solutions.

First step is open your mind and do not rely on others to solve this or any other problem for you. If you are waiting for industry or government to solve this for you, it won't happen because there is no motive for industry or government to make water freely available to you. While in fact water is a freely available resource that belongs to the people, people pay government to poorly manage it and profit from this resource.

Once more, think about infrastructure, production, or move toward where water exists.

durrelllrobert - 12-31-2011 at 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Islandbuilder

Also, do you think that strawberries are sustaintaining billions of people? Or is that the job of the Iceberg Lettuce? :spingrin:

No, it's the vineyards that require lots of water that sustain the billions. :lol:

gnukid - 12-31-2011 at 11:30 AM

There are many installations of simple solar desal watering systems to water a garden plot big enough to feed you and your neighbors. And it is possible to build compost from household waste to nurture compost to feed the soil and mix with sand which is an excellent medium.

And yes there is a great deal of interest in this type of gardening near the waterfront and the soil is thriving year to year and garbage is becoming minimal.

I have a friend here in Baja, some of you know him, he goes by the name Valentino, he is 77 years old and is in perfect health, he does sports daily and lives in his camper at the beach. He only drinks water that he collects and puts through a hand powered military grade purification pump and he stores the water in glass bottles and only drinks from glasses or ceramics that he carries in a wood box. He looks about 25 years old. Valentino has taught me a great deal.

Here are some examples of solar powered desal plants.

http://www.desline.com/articoli/5143.pdf

http://inhabitat.com/ibm-saudi-researchers-team-up-on-solar-...

http://wiki.edc-cu.org/blogs/index.php/videos/2007/12/14/sma...

One must look critically at your actions to determine how you can improve and contribute to your community with simple solutions.

Islandbuilder - 12-31-2011 at 11:49 AM

gnukid, thank you for some very thoughtful posts! Lots to consider there.
But, the original question refered to the large (industrial) sized farms that are mono-cropping and using large amounts of (fresh) water.

Most of your examples are for small, local community or family sized gardens, raising diverse crops and considering practicality over a distant market.

I am very much in favor of the sort of farming you describe, and as Mengano correctly pointed out, collecting water from non-aquifer sources (which was also part of the original post).

Small farms and gardens, serving families and communities, using reclaimed or de-sal water are in no way comparable to large industrial farms drawing their water from underground aquifers.

The industrial farms depend on cheap water to grow their crops, and cheap fuel to either warm greenhouses or transport their crops, or to pump water. I agree with you that we have many untapped oil reserves, and that the current oil shortages are largly artificial being created by oil producers, governments and environmental activists (who are playing right into big oils hands by advocating against utilizing available oil reserves). But, perception controls markets, and the perception is that we are running out of oil, and water (Mengano is certainly correct in differentiating between running out of fresh vs salt water).

My view is that we need to move away from large mono-culture industrial farms, and towards community solutions. Or, we need to allow permits for nuke powered de-sal plants along the shorelines and allocate the coastal deserts as growing grounds to feed the worlds cities.

[Edited on 12-31-2011 by Islandbuilder]

Mengano - 12-31-2011 at 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cardon Man
Could you possibly be any more devoid of rational thought?

You see, Cardon Man, you drew first blood. Everybody here is discussing their viewpoint in a rational manner, and then you jump in with a personal attack on me, not the issues. Then, if I respond in kind to you, you and your ilk like Wilderone, go crying to Doug that I am disruptive.

You think you hold the high moral ground here, but you are just like an impetuous child, who being unable to hold up his end of a cogent argument, resorts to name calling.

gnukid - 12-31-2011 at 12:27 PM

It's quite easy to say, no large scale productivity can't work and drop it which serves no one.

Consider this point, if we can transport endless plastic bottles of water across the continent, couldn't we build multiple north american water pipelines from the North to the South.

I have noted industrial solar desal systems as evidence of methods that work and are in practice today, and offered a perspective that notes the issue is not scarcity, nor lack of method, its transportation of water or system infrastructure as well as mindset. We must stop leaks and gather water in its form presented as humidity. desal, wells, reclamation and whatever sources we have and use them carefully. The previous posts notes first hand sources of current installations throughout the middle east which are scalable. Take an hour and do some research, build a test unit, it's fun and costs very little and you can go away and come back to find a garden full of fruits.

When you begin to rethink what is large scale, it is an extrapolation of small scale. If there are many small systems that work independently throughout the community, they can supply a large amount of food for local people, and in doing so costs and negative impacts of large scale goes away, such as transportation, refrigeration, pesticides, big box stores and in turn communities become self sufficient and self responsible.

Certainly transporting food across the world is not of benefit to us and in the process we are giving up quality control and allowing Genetically Engineered food into our systems that is not of the same quality or nutritional value as locally grown and potentially is of great risk to our bodies.

You must convince yourself what works for you. Personally I enjoy being part of a large family and integrated community, we often eat dinner with more than 10-20 people, I often collect the food and cook it and know the sources. I choose my personal sources, neighbors gardens and small time gardens.

In fact, as has been pointed out on BN, industry has become very interested in this process of local gardening in Baja. The children of the Walton family have chosen to live in Baja and are encouraging local family farming with their association NOS and Sabores de la tierra as do Carlos Slim's family.

There have been articles about the critical strategic importance of (controlling) local food supply, since food is power, if people can grow their own food they take away the idea of scarcity (fear) and power from external sources. Kissinger said "who controls the food supply controls the people".

Local gardening makes up for more than 10% of current market supply (to stores) Not counting what is being traded and eaten outside of common markets, and it is expanding, so it's quite possible to reverse these trends of transporting food across the world at increased costs and reduced quality and have communities serve themselves.

Also be aware that everything you read requires you filter the information, there is a motive behind every message and every word, so when you read a report that promotes scarcity, consider the motive, means and methods to create scarcity and how to solve the problem for yourself and your community.

http://cscanada.net/index.php/est/article/view/1271

the big pic !!

captkw - 12-31-2011 at 10:19 PM

hola,,just to through,, in my card's,,,,,does,, anyone on this site,, know about the "north american union" and the road going up thru texas as the the start of the gig,,it all started with NAFTA....all up thru canada?? K&T

wilderone - 1-1-2012 at 08:49 AM

NAFTA Superhighway - dead, but some of the contractors have built other highway spurs from the same money source.

"Transportation leaders acknowledge failures of TTC-35 project, hint at future I-35 strategies
Oct 7 Written by: Andy Hogue
10/7/2009 3:19 PM

Along with the announcement that TTC-35 is dead at a press release today came a mea culpa of sorts from a Texas Transportation Commissioner.

The Texas Transportation Commission decided this week to pursue a "no action alternative" following the federally mandated environmental study period and public opinion gathering process for TTC-35.

After noting the public relations failures of the TTC-35 project (a north-south element of the Trans-Texas Corridor, a privately built multi-lane toll road, railway and utility line network to run roughly parallel to Interstate Highway 35), Commissioner Ted Houghton said there were four groups which rallied against the project in large numbers -- one of which he said made a "legitimate" case:

1) "Conspirists" who assumed TTC-35 was part of a larger plan to unite Canada, the United States and Mexico into a North American Union government similar to the European Union.

2) Anti-toll road activists.

3) Anti-immigration and immigration control activists.

4) Landowners whose property value was at risk due to the possibility of land being taken for TTC-35 right-of-way.

"By that blue line on that map (the proposed study area for TTC-35) we tainted that property, and we really didn't understand that until we got out into that region and listened to those folks," Houghton, an El Paso resident, said. "Those (property owners) are the ones I really listened to -- though we listened to all Texans ... They had a legitimate gripe."

Houghton said the strategy for now is to work in four regional segments to relieve north-south traffic congestion.

"We didn't do a good job of explaining Trans-Texas Corridor," Houghton said. "A lot of it was mostly our fault in how we explained it, and how we rolled it out. We're not good marketeers here at the Texas Department of Transportation, but we've learned the hard way, and I've got scars to prove it."

Prior to that statement, Houghton jokingly refered to himself as "the most arrogant commissioner of the most arrogant state agency in the history of the state of Texas" -- perhaps a reference to comments made by gubernatorial candidate Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Though officials did not have any statistics on how many comments for and against the project were received, it was pretty clear that public sentiment was generally against the plan.

Amadeo Saenz, chief engineer of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), said a public input campaign "on a scale never seen before" would be implemented for future plans to build segments of an alternate north-south route. He said work will soon begin on a "citizens' plan" for relieving traffic along the I-35 corridor.

Work that has already been done on TTC-35 comes at no cost to the state of Texas, Houghton said, though Saenz added there is a $300,000-$500,000 charge for changing plans, payable to TTC-35 conscesssionaire Cintra-Zachary. There is no fee for terminating the state's contract for TTC-35, Saenz said.

Roughly $11.8 million has been spent on the environmental study so far, according to a press packet from TxDOT. Today's announcement does not affect the construction of Segments 5 and 6 of the project, which is a widening of State Highway 130 from Seguin to Austin. It also does not affect I-69 additions or infrastructure improvement.

It will take another three-to-six months to complete the final environmental impact statement. "The blue line won't disappear overnight," Saenz said.

Terri Hall, director of the anti-toll road group TURF (Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom) said she considered today's announcement a major victory in the fight against TTC-35, but questions whether the project is dead, yet.

"How does this affect Chapter 227 of the transportation code, that still has the Trans-Texas Corridor in there? ... But I do think at the end of the day this is a huge defeat for the Trans-Texas Corridor concept that the governor (Rick Perry) put out years before. It's clear that there's no political support for it. And what cracks me up is that there has never been any political support for any of his toll road projects, frankly!"

Houghton said TxDOT is still committed to expanding I-35 to six lanes between Hillsboro and San Antonio.

"The funds invested in the study of TTC-35 remain a sound investment, as the analyses and citizen comments collected during the review may be used in the I-35 Corridor Advisory Committee's planning effort, as well as other project-specific planning efforts," a press release for today's event said. "Congestion on I-35 is a well-known problem, and is one that will certainly grow over time. I-35 appears on TxDOT's list of the 100 most congested roadways in the state 13 times -- more than any other roadway. An estimated 45 percent of Texas' population resides along the I-35 corridor, with more people moving here each day."

LSR will, as we always have, keep an eye on this.

mcfez - 1-1-2012 at 10:36 AM

In recent years, numerous large-scale seawater desalination plants have been built in water-stressed countries to augment available water resources, and construction of new desalination plants is expected to increase in the near future. Despite major advancements in desalination technologies, seawater desalination is still more energy intensive compared to conventional technologies for the treatment of fresh water. There are also concerns about the potential environmental impacts of large-scale seawater desalination plants.

We are in the farming business.....cost of the water dictates the farm future crops. Conservation and recycle of the water resources is critical.

Desalination technologies dont work when the needs are 50 miles inland :-)

durrelllrobert - 1-1-2012 at 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid

Here are some examples of solar powered desal plants.

http://www.desline.com/articoli/5143.pdf

http://inhabitat.com/ibm-saudi-researchers-team-up-on-solar-...

http://wiki.edc-cu.org/blogs/index.php/videos/2007/12/14/sma...
.

I recently met a guy down here (forgot his name) that claimed he was in negotiations with Carlos Slim to finance his patent pending "Micro Solar Electric and Desalinzation Plant" to be installed in all coastal towns/villages in Baja.

Islandbuilder - 1-1-2012 at 02:02 PM

This is a very interesting thread, and I really appreciate Gnukids contributions. I have read through the information contained in the links Gnukid shared, and, unless I missed something, none of these systems seem geared toward providing enough water to support the current farming practices in the San Quintin valley. I can see them providing emergency water for a family, and therefore could be combined to serve a community (one family at a time) but none are intended to produce the thousands of gallons needed on a daily basis.

RO systems can produce a great deal of fresh water and have small footprints, but require large pumps that in turn need lots of energy to run. Evaporative systems can be built using solar power, but these have a huge footprint, displacing level farm land. Condensing systems can also be built utilizing solar heating, but these can't reach the high temps needed to create the volume of water needed. High heat condensors need, again, high levels of energy.

I'm sure a solution is out there somewhere, but nothing on the table thus far seems able to provide enough water to support industrial scale mono-cultural farming. Small family and community gardens, simplifing our food demands to better align with what foods can be locally and seasonally produced can help some us, but won't meet the needs of large urban areas.

I certainly don't advocate cutting off water supplies, because that would, as Mengano pointed out, starve billions of humans, but we need to address the problem of dwindling fresh water resources, and I think that it's better to do so in a proactive manner.

As many wars and empires that have been born out of our need for petroleum, they will pale in the face of what will happen when the worlds wells begin drying up.

gnukid - 1-1-2012 at 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Islandbuilder
This is a very interesting thread, and I really appreciate Gnukids contributions. I have read through the information contained in the links Gnukid shared, and, unless I missed something, none of these systems seem geared toward providing enough water to support the current farming practices in the San Quintin valley. I can see them providing emergency water for a family, and therefore could be combined to serve a community (one family at a time) but none are intended to produce the thousands of gallons needed on a daily basis.

RO systems can produce a great deal of fresh water and have small footprints, but require large pumps that in turn need lots of energy to run. Evaporative systems can be built using solar power, but these have a huge footprint, displacing level farm land. Condensing systems can also be built utilizing solar heating, but these can't reach the high temps needed to create the volume of water needed. High heat condensors need, again, high levels of energy.

I'm sure a solution is out there somewhere, but nothing on the table thus far seems able to provide enough water to support industrial scale mono-cultural farming. Small family and community gardens, simplifing our food demands to better align with what foods can be locally and seasonally produced can help some us, but won't meet the needs of large urban areas.

I certainly don't advocate cutting off water supplies, because that would, as Mengano pointed out, starve billions of humans, but we need to address the problem of dwindling fresh water resources, and I think that it's better to do so in a proactive manner.

As many wars and empires that have been born out of our need for petroleum, they will pale in the face of what will happen when the worlds wells begin drying up.

Your reply misrepresents my broad points and distracts from the important various points made in this thread. Your reply reduces the subject from a broad discussion about water conservation and resources, infrastructure, production technique, alternative and additional water sources for productive gardens to a discussion about one point--solar desal.

The larger point is that scarcity is a falsified notion since the issue is lack of adequate infrastructure, which is easily resolvable and in fact increasing sources of water exist for an increasing number of farming solutions far outside the doomsday water scarcity theme that supports commercial/GMO factory methods.

The summarized point of the abstract about solar water desal system is that water can be produced in large or small quantity at .02/liter.

gnukid - 1-1-2012 at 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wilderone
NAFTA Superhighway - dead, but some of the contractors have built other highway spurs from the same money source.

"Transportation leaders acknowledge failures of TTC-35 project, hint at future I-35 strategies
Oct 7 Written by: Andy Hogue
10/7/2009 3:19 PM

Along with the announcement that TTC-35 is dead at a press release today came a mea culpa of sorts from a Texas Transportation Commissioner.

The Texas Transportation Commission decided this week to pursue a "no action alternative" following the federally mandated environmental study period and public opinion gathering process for TTC-35.

After noting the public relations failures of the TTC-35 project (a north-south element of the Trans-Texas Corridor, a privately built multi-lane toll road, railway and utility line network to run roughly parallel to Interstate Highway 35), Commissioner Ted Houghton said there were four groups which rallied against the project in large numbers -- one of which he said made a "legitimate" case:

1) "Conspirists" who assumed TTC-35 was part of a larger plan to unite Canada, the United States and Mexico into a North American Union government similar to the European Union.

2) Anti-toll road activists.

3) Anti-immigration and immigration control activists.

4) Landowners whose property value was at risk due to the possibility of land being taken for TTC-35 right-of-way.

"By that blue line on that map (the proposed study area for TTC-35) we tainted that property, and we really didn't understand that until we got out into that region and listened to those folks," Houghton, an El Paso resident, said. "Those (property owners) are the ones I really listened to -- though we listened to all Texans ... They had a legitimate gripe."

Houghton said the strategy for now is to work in four regional segments to relieve north-south traffic congestion.

"We didn't do a good job of explaining Trans-Texas Corridor," Houghton said. "A lot of it was mostly our fault in how we explained it, and how we rolled it out. We're not good marketeers here at the Texas Department of Transportation, but we've learned the hard way, and I've got scars to prove it."

Prior to that statement, Houghton jokingly refered to himself as "the most arrogant commissioner of the most arrogant state agency in the history of the state of Texas" -- perhaps a reference to comments made by gubernatorial candidate Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Though officials did not have any statistics on how many comments for and against the project were received, it was pretty clear that public sentiment was generally against the plan.

Amadeo Saenz, chief engineer of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), said a public input campaign "on a scale never seen before" would be implemented for future plans to build segments of an alternate north-south route. He said work will soon begin on a "citizens' plan" for relieving traffic along the I-35 corridor.

Work that has already been done on TTC-35 comes at no cost to the state of Texas, Houghton said, though Saenz added there is a $300,000-$500,000 charge for changing plans, payable to TTC-35 conscesssionaire Cintra-Zachary. There is no fee for terminating the state's contract for TTC-35, Saenz said.

Roughly $11.8 million has been spent on the environmental study so far, according to a press packet from TxDOT. Today's announcement does not affect the construction of Segments 5 and 6 of the project, which is a widening of State Highway 130 from Seguin to Austin. It also does not affect I-69 additions or infrastructure improvement.

It will take another three-to-six months to complete the final environmental impact statement. "The blue line won't disappear overnight," Saenz said.

Terri Hall, director of the anti-toll road group TURF (Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom) said she considered today's announcement a major victory in the fight against TTC-35, but questions whether the project is dead, yet.

"How does this affect Chapter 227 of the transportation code, that still has the Trans-Texas Corridor in there? ... But I do think at the end of the day this is a huge defeat for the Trans-Texas Corridor concept that the governor (Rick Perry) put out years before. It's clear that there's no political support for it. And what cracks me up is that there has never been any political support for any of his toll road projects, frankly!"

Houghton said TxDOT is still committed to expanding I-35 to six lanes between Hillsboro and San Antonio.

"The funds invested in the study of TTC-35 remain a sound investment, as the analyses and citizen comments collected during the review may be used in the I-35 Corridor Advisory Committee's planning effort, as well as other project-specific planning efforts," a press release for today's event said. "Congestion on I-35 is a well-known problem, and is one that will certainly grow over time. I-35 appears on TxDOT's list of the 100 most congested roadways in the state 13 times -- more than any other roadway. An estimated 45 percent of Texas' population resides along the I-35 corridor, with more people moving here each day."

LSR will, as we always have, keep an eye on this.

This reply is also a mix of half truths published in the media which result in a false conclusion that NAU is dead, while in fact SPP or Security Prosperity Pact is in full swing in a incremental fashion.

This has been the pattern of this unification project, deny deny deny and continue.

Do a internet search on Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness: Regulatory Cooperation – A Report on the Consultations on Regulatory Cooperation Between Canada and the United States, SPP or cross border security, cross border policing etc... Do your own homework to see the many recent steps to unify military and policing along with commercial activity across the borders of North America.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-border-deal...

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=3934

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/with-cross-bord...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-and-obam...

http://www.globalnews.ca/richer+and+safer/6442537444/story.h...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/f...

http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=754...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9wBl3VXFu8

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1098487-...

[Edited on 1-1-2012 by gnukid]

Islandbuilder - 1-1-2012 at 06:13 PM

Gnukid, I certainly wasn't trying to misrepresent your posts, I was just trying to apply the infomation you provided in the contect of the thread; Large scale Organic Farming.

I guess I'm missing something. As I read through the infomation that you linked, I see theoretical systems, supported with higher level mathmatics, and not much more. The solar condensing system prototype used a water heater to provide the temps needed for the system to work. I agree that it should be feasible to run a similar system with solar heated water, but not for more than a few hours per day. Right? Or am I not seeing something?

I don't think that I'm advocating for or against one solution or another, and I don't understand (what I read to be) your defensive attitude. I think that I am in agreement with virtually all your underlying points, and I really want to find a practical and sustainable method for desalinization. As you say, these issues are easily overcome with infrastructure improvement, but I disagree with you that these improvements can be made easily and cheaply.

Please, be patient with my ignorance, and explain your points. I will try and repeat back as clearly as possible what I'm hearing, and between us we'll advance the conversation. Without question, providing clean water and good food are worth taking some time and effort to discuss.

Regards.

woody with a view - 1-2-2012 at 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by durrelllrobert

Quote:

was his name, "GottaPeso?"

wilderone - 1-2-2012 at 09:55 AM

gnukid - those links don't have anything to do with building a Mexico-Canada 8-lane toll road through the US or the NAFTA Superhighway. Rather, highlights recent negotiations having to do with changing paperwork processes at the Canadian border and creating a bi-national security force (good luck with that). Moreover:

"The perimeter deal is not a treaty – and Mr. Harper and Mr. Obama have signed nothing that irrevocably binds them to do anything.

While this gives Canada flexibility, it also means that bureaucratic inertia can doom the deal. That’s because much of the action plans require negotiations and fleshing-out by officials in both countries – a hazardous process that can easily fall victim to shifting priorities, such as a U.S. presidential election."

wessongroup - 1-2-2012 at 09:58 AM

"was his name, "GottaPeso?" :lol:

And Islandbuilder .. your spot on with this one, as it is the most basic.. and important in the end

"Without question, providing clean water and good food are worth taking some time and effort to discuss."

[Edited on 1-2-2012 by wessongroup]

Pompano - 1-2-2012 at 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Don Jorge
The article initially referenced in this thread says, "Manuel Verdugo, 42, began organic tomato farming on desert land in San José del Cabo five years ago and now owns 30 acres in several locations."

Each acre of tomatoes he grows in the desert conditions he grows in requires 2 acre feet of water. An acre foot of water is 325,851 gallons. 2 acre feet of water per acre to grow his tomatoes is 651,702 gallons of water per acre.

Multiply that by the 30 acres he farms and the sum of his annual water use is 19,551,060 gallons of water. Almost 20 million gallons for 30 acres of tomatoes.

The original question and farming sustainably in Baja? They are not farming, they are mining the natural resources that have been deposited over the course of millions of years. When they play it out they will be gone, leaving behind a weed infested sandscape. When they develop a water storage and delivery system for the farms they can talk about sustainability.

But, sustainable farming is being done and has a bright and growing future. It is best done in temperate regions with adequate rainfall, storage capacity and delivery systems.

As much as everyone loves to rag on California, and I have my moments too, California does store water and does deliver it to city and farm. The cost is rising but as I said earlier, water is a de facto commodity and market mechanisms will dictate where and to whom it flows.

[Edited on 1-2-2012 by Don Jorge]

George, tsk, tsk...never, never confuse theories by adding actual facts.

Remember, you're not in Ashley here.

A well-worn, but still sage observation: 'You can lead a horse to water...but you can't make him drink.'

In this case, your post of hands-on experience being 'the Water'.

Excuse me, while I slip on my Kevlar.

Think local, act global.

DavidT - 1-8-2012 at 09:56 PM

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: December 30, 2011
TODOS SANTOS, Mexico — Clamshell containers on supermarket shelves in the United States may depict verdant fields, tangles of vines and ruby red tomatoes. But at this time of year, the tomatoes, peppers and basil certified as organic by the Agriculture Department often hail from the Mexican desert, and are nurtured with intensive irrigation.

Growers here on the Baja Peninsula, the epicenter of Mexico’s thriving new organic export sector, describe their toil amid the cactuses as “planting the beach.”

Del Cabo Cooperative, a supplier here for Trader Joe’s and Fairway, is sending more than seven and a half tons of tomatoes and basil every day to the United States by truck and plane to sate the American demand for organic produce year-round.

But even as more Americans buy foods with the organic label, the products are increasingly removed from the traditional organic ideal: produce that is not only free of chemicals and pesticides but also grown locally on small farms in a way that protects the environment.

The explosive growth in the commercial cultivation of organic tomatoes here, for example, is putting stress on the water table. In some areas, wells have run dry this year, meaning that small subsistence farmers cannot grow crops. And the organic tomatoes end up in an energy-intensive global distribution chain that takes them as far as New York and Dubai, United Arab Emirates, producing significant emissions that contribute to global warming.

From now until spring, farms from Mexico to Chile to Argentina that grow organic food for the United States market are enjoying their busiest season.

“People are now buying from a global commodity market, and they have to be skeptical even when the label says ‘organic’ — that doesn’t tell people all they need to know,” said Frederick L. Kirschenmann, a distinguished fellow at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University. He said some large farms that have qualified as organic employed environmentally damaging practices, like planting only one crop, which is bad for soil health, or overtaxing local freshwater supplies.

Many growers and even environmental groups in Mexico defend the export-driven organic farming, even as they acknowledge that more than a third of the aquifers in southern Baja are categorized as overexploited by the Mexican water authority. With sophisticated irrigation systems and shade houses, they say, farmers are becoming more skilled at conserving water. They are focusing new farms in “microclimates” near underexploited aquifers, such as in the shadow of a mountain, said Fernando Frías, a water specialist with the environmental group Pronatura Noroeste.

They also point out that the organic business has transformed what was once a poor area of subsistence farms and where even the low-paying jobs in the tourist hotels and restaurants in nearby Cabo San Lucas have become scarcer during the recession.

To carry the Agriculture Department’s organic label on their produce, farms in the United States and abroad must comply with a long list of standards that prohibit the use of synthetic fertilizers, hormones and pesticides, for example. But the checklist makes few specific demands for what would broadly be called environmental sustainability, even though the 1990 law that created the standards was intended to promote ecological balance and biodiversity as well as soil and water health.

Experts agree that in general organic farms tend to be less damaging to the environment than conventional farms. In the past, however, “organic agriculture used to be sustainable agriculture, but now that is not always the case,” said Michael Bomford, a scientist at Kentucky State University who specializes in sustainable agriculture. He added that intense organic agriculture had also put stress on aquifers in California.

Some organic standard setters are beginning to refine their criteria so that organic products better match their natural ideals. Krav, a major Swedish organic certification program, allows produce grown in greenhouses to carry its “organic” label only if the buildings use at least 80 percent renewable fuel, for example. And last year the Agriculture Department’s National Organic Standards Board revised its rules to require that for an “organic milk” label, cows had to be at least partly fed by grazing in open pastures rather than standing full time in feedlots.

But each decision to narrow the definition of “organic” involves an inevitable tug-of-war among farmers, food producers, supermarkets and environmentalists. While the United States’ regulations for organic certification require that growers use practices that protect water resources, it is hard to define a specific sustainable level of water use for a single farm “because aquifer depletion is the result of many farmers’ overutilizing the resource,” said Miles McEvoy, head of the National Organic Program at the Agriculture Department.

While the original organic ideal was to eat only local, seasonal produce, shoppers who buy their organics at supermarkets, from Whole Foods to Walmart, expect to find tomatoes in December and are very sensitive to price. Both factors stoke the demand for imports. Few areas in the United States can farm organic produce in the winter without resorting to energy-guzzling hothouses. In addition, American labor costs are high. Day laborers who come to pick tomatoes in this part of Baja make about $10 a day, nearly twice the local minimum wage. Tomato pickers in Florida may earn $80 a day in high season.

Manuel Verdugo, 42, began organic tomato farming on desert land in San José del Cabo five years ago and now owns 30 acres in several locations. Each week he sends two and a half tons of cherry, plum and beefsteak tomatoes to the United States under the brand name Tiky Cabo.

He has invested in irrigation systems that drip water directly onto plants’ roots rather than channeling it through open canals. He is building large shade houses that cover his crops to keep out pests and minimize evaporation. Even so, he cannot farm 10 acres in the nearby hamlet of La Cuenca because the wells there are dry.

At another five-year-old organic farm, Rosario Castillo says he can cultivate only 19 acres of the 100 he has earmarked for organic production, although he dug a well seven months ago to gain better access to the aquifer. The authorities ration pumping and have not granted him permission to clear native cactuses. “We have very little water here, and you have to go through a lot of bureaucracy to get it,” Mr. Castillo said.

Many growers blame tourist development — hotels and golf courses — for the water scarcity, and this has been a major problem in coastal areas. But farming can also be a significant drain. According to one study in an area of northern Baja called Ojos Negros, a boom in the planting of green onions for export a decade ago lowered the water table by about 16 inches a year. “They were pumping a lot of groundwater, and that was making some people rich on both sides of the border at the expense of the environment,” said Victor Miguel Ponce, a professor of hydrology at San Diego State University.

The logistics of getting water and transporting large volumes of perishable produce favors bigger producers. Some of the largest are American-owned, like Sueño Tropical, a vast farm with rows of shade houses lined up in the desert that caters exclusively to the American market.

While traditional organic farmers saw a blemish or odd shape simply as nature’s variations, workers at Sueño Tropical are instructed to cull tomatoes that do not meet the uniform shape, size and cosmetic requirement of clients like Whole Foods. Those “seconds” are sold locally.

Yet the connection to the United States has brought other kinds of benefits. Del Cabo Cooperative, which serves as a broker for hundreds of local farmers, provides seeds for its Mexican growers and hires roving agronomists and entomologists to assist them in tending their crops without chemicals. As the American market expands, said John Graham, a coordinator of operations at Del Cabo, he is always looking to bring new growers into his network — especially those whose farms draw on distant aquifers where water is still abundant.

David Agren contributed reporting.

serria la luguna

captkw - 1-8-2012 at 10:48 PM

And you think,this new ,push,farming in bcs,is gonna last,,the w/table is the lowest in man's recorded history !!

vgabndo - 1-8-2012 at 11:10 PM

This actual concept is credited to a guy in the 19teens.

"Think globally, act locally" urges people to consider the health of the entire planet and to take action in their own communities and cities. Long before governments began enforcing environmental laws, individuals were coming together to protect habitats and the organisms that live within them. These efforts are referred to as grassroots efforts. They occur on a local level and are primarily run by volunteers and helpers.

The shortsighted use of a regions water is just the opposite. IMO