BajaNews
Super Moderator
Posts: 1439
Registered: 12-11-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
All-American Canal plan spells trouble for Mexican crops
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20061030-9999-1n30...
By Sandra Dibble
October 30, 2006
CIUDAD MORELOS, Mexico – Victor Smith grows vegetables on both sides of the border, and the fields look pretty much the same: long rows of green
onions, romaine lettuce and organic celery destined for salad bowls across the United States, Canada and England.
Now, a U.S. water conservation plan threatens to wither his Mexican crop, which is sustained by cross-border seepage. And Smith, a U.S. citizen who
lives in Yuma, Ariz., and speaks halting Spanish, is as adamant as his Mexican neighbors when he says the lining of the All-American Canal must be
stopped.
“If we take a regional perspective, as opposed to this artificial border line, this is a real tragedy,” Smith said one recent morning, driving past
freshly plowed fields in this quiet community a few miles southwest of Algodones. “This is tremendously productive ground.”
The lining debate has persisted for three decades. The U.S. government supports it, while Mexico has remained staunchly opposed. But along this arid
stretch of the border, where the economies are tightly intertwined, issues are not always neatly split, as Smith's situation shows.
The city of Calexico opposes the project, fearful that any economic impact on Mexicali would devastate the small U.S. community that lives on retail
trade from across the border. Environmentalists on both sides oppose the project, saying it threatens a key wetland in Mexico. Smith, whose family has
farmed in Mexico since the early 1980s, has joined the chorus of protests, saying it will badly damage his booming Mexicali Valley vegetable export
business.
At 54, he holds strong views and is not shy about expressing them, sometimes with wry humor. A midsize grower, he is a leader in his industry and a
board member of a major trade group, the Washington, D.C.-based United Fresh Produce Association.
Born in southern Colorado, Smith earned a business degree and followed his father into the vegetable business; the family companies control some 9,000
acres in the vicinity of Yuma and more than 5,000 acres in the Mexicali Valley, where dry weather and good soil are ideal for winter vegetables.
While lower labor costs initially prompted Smith's family to look south, he said today's shortage of farm labor and farmland in the Yuma region have
become increasingly important reasons for expanding into Mexico. “We can't find the labor force up here for the vegetable industry,” he said.
The Mexicali Valley offers other advantages, he said, besides the sandy loam that drains so well. One of these is its proximity to critical U.S.
distribution networks.
Even as U.S. policies have moved to tighten the border, powerful economic interests, family ties, environmental concerns and cross-border hydrological
basins bind communities on both sides. The communities of the Mexicali and Imperial valleys that look to the Colorado River as their chief water
supply are among the most closely connected on the U.S.-Mexico border, said Stephen Mumme, a political scientist at Colorado State University.
U.S. influence
U.S. investors developed agriculture in the Mexicali Valley in the early 1900s, and despite interruptions, their influence in the region has remained
strong, Mumme said. Today, U.S.-owned enterprises are involved in growing crops, producing fertilizers and processing and distributing produce.
“One of the arguments that has been made against the lining project is that simply by adversely impacting the economy of the Mexicali Valley, we are
adversely affecting ourselves,” said Mumme, a longtime scholar of binational water issues.
For now, the lining project is on standby. A federal appeals court in San Francisco issued an emergency injunction in August suspending the project
just as contractors were set to begin. Supporters and opponents of the project are waiting for the outcome of a court hearing in December.
For proponents of lining the All-American Canal, the issue is clear-cut: The water carried by the canal belongs to California, part of its 4.4 million
acre-foot annual allotment authorized in the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928. The savings, they say, are key to San Diego County's future water
supply, enough for 134,000 households annually.
“It's pretty straightforward and simple,” said Dan Hentschke, the chief attorney for the San Diego County Water Authority. “This is legitimately San
Diego's water.”
The All-American Canal, which runs through 82 miles of California desert, has carried Colorado River water to the Imperial Valley since 1940. To
prevent large amounts of water from seeping through the canal's porous earthen surface, a plan to line it was hatched in the mid-1970s.
Congress gave the go-ahead in 1988, but it wasn't until 2003 that the plan moved forward after a federally mandated agreement for California to
decrease its draw on the Colorado River. The lining is a critical component of the delicately crafted accord, and cancellation of the project could
cause California to miss the settlement's deadline.
Support for the $251 million project comes from federal, state and local government agencies in the United States. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation owns
the canal, but the Imperial Irrigation District operates it.
The cost is being shared by the state of California and the San Diego County Water Authority, the prime beneficiary of the lining. But the deal also
would bring 16,000 acre-feet annually to several bands of Mission Indians, settling a decades-long legal battle over water rights in North County.
Conservation question
Smith and other critics say Southern California coastal regions must learn to conserve more, or look to desalination rather than importing an
additional supply from the Colorado River.
But proponents of the projects say the lining itself is a conservation measure.
“This is not growth water, this is core supply water, and they're claiming ownership of what's really ours,” said Hentschke of the San Diego County
Water Authority.
Supporters of the lining say Mexico needs to learn to live within its allocation of the Colorado River– 1.5 million acre-feet annually. “Mexico can do
similar activities that California has, go into districts, and conserve water where it can be conserved,” said Gerald Zimmerman, executive director of
the Colorado River Board of California. “I believe California agencies would work with them.”
The Mexicali Valley grew up around cotton and wheat, and the two crops remain dominant in the region. Horticulture has been a more recent phenomenon,
dating to the 1960s with the harvest of green onions.
Last year, vegetables such as green onions and asparagus accounted for more than $134 million in exports through Mexicali, according to a database
maintained by the Mexicali Association of Customs Agents.
Smith's Baja California company, Promotora Agricola El Toro, is one of five export-oriented U.S. vegetable growers in the Mexicali Valley that
together control about 20,000 acres, said José Elias, president of a growers umbrella group in the valley, the Unión Agricola Regional de Productores
de Hortalizas.
Business groups say the local economy has benefited from their presence in Baja California through the creation of jobs and the introduction of
farming techniques. These include sprinkler and drip irrigation systems that decrease water consumption, and laser-leveling of fields to improve
productivity.
The region, in turn, has become an important source of winter vegetables for the United States. Smith estimates that more than 95 percent of the
annual winter green onion supply in the United States and Canada, about 24 million packages, comes through Mexicali and nearby Sonora.
The Baja California government estimates that more than 86,000 acres of cropland will be affected by the project, but Smith said his lands, highly
reliant on the canal's seepage, put him at ground zero.
If the project is built, he estimates that he will be able to keep producing there for at most four or five years before the water becomes too salty
to sustain his crops. The repercussions, he said, will reach far beyond his fields.
“This is not the U.S. versus Mexico, when you look at how interrelated and diversified we are,” Smith said. “I've got more in common with Mexicali and
San Luis and northern Mexico than I do with Washington, D.C., by a long shot.”
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Tough Stuff
It's OUR water and we have the RIGHT to put it to the best interest of the U.S.
|
|
|
comitan
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4177
Registered: 3-27-2004
Location: La Paz
Member Is Offline
Mood: mellow
|
|
It seems as tho they could repair the canal and stop the leakage, which a certain percentage is totaly lost and pump that percentage out the the
growers. then everyone wins.
[Edited on 11-2-2006 by comitan]
Strive For The Ideal, But Deal With What\'s Real.
Every day is a new day, better than the day before.(from some song)
Lord, Keep your arm around my shoulder and your hand over my mouth.
“The sincere pursuit of truth requires you to entertain the possibility that everything you believe to be true may in fact be false”
|
|
|
bancoduo
Banned
Posts: 1003
Registered: 10-3-2005
Location: el carcel publico mazatlan sin.
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by comitan
It seems as tho they could repair the canal and stop the leakage, which a certain percentage is totaly lost and pump that percentage out the the
growers. then everyone wins.
[Edited on 11-2-2006 by comitan] |
You would'nt make a very good BUREAUCRAT. 
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18386
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Online
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MrBillM
It's OUR water and we have the RIGHT to put it to the best interest of the U.S. |
San Diego should quit fighting toilet-to-tap, and quit robbing water from others. (my fellow citizens in San Diego are not too bright - they are self
centered)
The water lost by all-amer-canal is a benefit to americans in the imperial valley. If you kill the farming economy on the Mex side of the border,
then you hurt the economy on the US side.
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
A good percentage but not all
| Quote: | Originally posted by MrBillM
It's OUR water and we have the RIGHT to put it to the best interest of the U.S. |
I don't know the precise figures but Mexico shares the Colorado basin riparin rights.
|
|
|
Frigatebird
Nomad
Posts: 215
Registered: 9-12-2004
Location: L.A. County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Soaring
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Dave
| Quote: | Originally posted by MrBillM
It's OUR water and we have the RIGHT to put it to the best interest of the U.S. |
I don't know the precise figures but Mexico shares the Colorado basin riparin rights. |
I've read Mexico's allocation is 1.5 million acre feet annually, with adjustments during times of drought. The water must also meet certain quality
standards. Seems to me they should be able to do alot with that amount. If not, then they should invest in alternative crops or conservation
technology. Then again, maybe some well placed tunnels might fit the bill. 
Avatar courtesy of Herb 
|
|
|
Bajafun777
Super Nomad
Posts: 1103
Registered: 9-13-2006
Location: Rosarito & California
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying Life with Wife In Mexico, Easy on The Easy
|
|
It is not just Mexicali crops and jobs that are at risk here. Unfortunately for the Imperial Valley the IID thought they could trust San Diego more
than L.A. with the useage of the saved water from conservation, however, they are finding out that when it comes to getting more its more they want.
Our Imperial Valley will suffer as time goes on as San Diego will not stop its constant growth and need for more water. I have lived in the Imperial
Valley for over 40 years and have seen so many changes but its always been about the water. If we keep decreasing our ability to feed this country
with what we grow then we will be dependent on others just like we are for the oil. Food is something this Country has always used to help or
encourage other countries to do (hopefully) better things to help themselves in the future. Greed, money, and backstabbing is all politics are about
and that's why the problem will only get worse.  Later------Bajafun777
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Rights
The U.S. supplies Mexico with ALL of their legal allocation. The water lost through seepage in the canal is OUR water and we have
the right to do with it as the voters see fit.
|
|
|
longlegsinlapaz
Super Nomad
Posts: 1685
Registered: 11-18-2005
Location: La Paz
Member Is Offline
|
|
RIGHTS versus RIGHT.......Maybe it's the right thing to do to just leave things as they are. It seems that it'd be in the best
interest of both the US & Mexico; the US has need for the produce grown on the Mexican side; there would be a huge negative impact to both
countries through loss of revenue, produce, work & land usage, not to mention international good will. IMHO, the US has always consumed water as
though it's coming from a bottomless well, giving no thought to tomorrow, they need to get serious about water conservation & get more creative in
recycling possibilities, rather than ruining what certainly appears to be a win/win situation. There is such a thing as "Cutting off your own nose to
spite your own face"! The US may have the RIGHTS to do it, but is it really the RIGHT thing to do? 
|
|
|
Summanus
Nomad
Posts: 481
Registered: 10-15-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
longlegs...methinks thou hast opened Pandora's Box.
Summanus....ancient Roman Nightly Thunder God. He liked refrieds too.
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Water Usage
It is an economic fallacy to think that we would profit more by utilizing the water in question for agriculture rather than urban uses. The best use
for the water is that which will bring the largest dollar return. We can acquire agricultural products from other areas at a low enough price to
easily negate the loss of foreign local agriculture.
The Right thing to do is utilize our water to the best interests of the U.S. IF the laws need to be changed, then
the proper course of action is to work to change those laws.
|
|
|
Don Alley
Super Nomad
Posts: 1997
Registered: 12-4-2003
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
It may be nice if the water could be allocated for growing food instead of growing lawns and washing cars, but...
The San Diego Water Authority has a legal water right. And for it to willfully allow any diversion of its water rights would be an abrogation of its
legal duties to the people of San Diego. At least this is a new strategy: plug the leaks instead of grabbing an additional souce of water. That's
commendable.
If the legal allocation of Colorado River water is impractical, unjust, unfair or stupid then that allocation must be changed. Goodluck with that!
Driving through Southern California I think there is no shortage of electricity, water, gasoline, freeways, etc. Just way too many people! Ack!
Western water law: Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting.
|
|
|
TMW
Select Nomad
Posts: 10659
Registered: 9-1-2003
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
I'm not making a judgement call on the ag water but I would think that coastal cities would plan and put into place a saltwater system for homes and
business. Use saltwater for toilets, maybe even for showers with a fresh water rinse. City planners need to think outside of the box.
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Salt-Water System
Surely You Jest.
At present, most municipalities are having difficulties in meeting the cost obligations of their existing utility infrastructure.
The cost of installing a separate embedded-plant for delivery and disposal of Salt Water would be staggering and far outweigh any freshwater savings.
Additionally, although I have no expert knowledge in the area, I suspect that there might be other considerations on the disposal side dealing with
mixing (fresh) wastewater with Saltwater at the treatment facilities.
|
|
|
Bajafun777
Super Nomad
Posts: 1103
Registered: 9-13-2006
Location: Rosarito & California
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying Life with Wife In Mexico, Easy on The Easy
|
|
Just to set the record straight the San Diego Water Authority had no rights to the All American canal water from the Colorado River. The Imperial
Irrigation Department acting as a holder of the farmers and property owners in Imperial County by Congressional action has the rights to the water.
Now, in trying to work with the San Diego Water Authority instead of the Los Angeles Water Authority the IID entered into an agreement to let San
Diego have at a "PRICE" the conserved water from the fallowing of farm land and what it could conserve. The problem now is that the San Diego Water
Authority does not want to pay as it agreed to with the IID and the people of Imperial County are upset with the IID for being so stupid as to not be
more specific with the San Diego Water Authority before entering into the agreement. The fallowing of farm land affects the Imperial Valley residents
and the those that depend on the work and collateral work that farming brings with it. So, the San Diego Water Authority did not have any legal right
to the water from the All American Canal. Our past forefathers build it, paid for it, and have utilized to feed millions of people over the years.
It's is ours and we will not allow ourselves to become another Owens Valley where they stole their local water rights and left the area in ruin
because they trusted or just wanted to go along with the Los Angeles Water Authority to avoid a fight. Sometimes you have to fight and nobody gave a
damn about helping build or upkeep the All American Canal until they started getting too many people and then looking over the mountains to Imperial
Valley and it's water. We are a tough people in the Valley and know how to survive and will not let San Diego Water Authority steal our water.
Again if we depend on other countries for our food then we will be in as much trouble as we are with the oil. We still do it better, faster, and more
cost efficient than any foreign country. We do this even with them have an advantage of what they pay their field workers of $3 or $4 dollars a day.
America will always take care of it own and we Americans always know how to survive the outside problems forced upon us. The Mexicali farming
interest will have to pay for the water just like everyone else and they will still have the low paying jobs over their to offset costs in farming
that our farmers do not. Pay as you go or you do not go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now, let's think about a cool stroll on the beach and let the powers to be
fight this out. Bajafun777l
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Straightened Records
An excellent synopsis of the current debate and status of the ongoing water drama, however, I had assumed that
Everyone participating in the discussion were aware that the water rights belonged to the Imperial Valley interests who were engaging
in a Federally-Sanctioned Business Deal.
While further negotiations may determine the outcome of that Business deal, the essence of this thread dealt with the impact,
legality and morality of the water conservation lining as it applied to farmers in a foreign country irrespective of the machinations undertaken by
the two participating parties.
The salient fact remains that the water in question and the usage thereof remains the domain of a U.S. entity.
|
|
|
Don Alley
Super Nomad
Posts: 1997
Registered: 12-4-2003
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
It may be a business deal, but simply selling or leasing to the high bidder may be a poor business decision. The Big Urban Monsters on the coast will
never give up the water once they get it, and the Imperial Valley may regret doing business with them.
And it is in the courts, so it's not just a business issue, but a legal one. I don't know what the legal arguments are. But the general basics of
western water rights have usually included "use it or lose it." So it may seem logical to question the legality of a rights holder, amidst a general
shortage, having a legal right to excess, unused water that it can lease or sell. One could argue that unused water should be re-allocated to a junior
water right.
I know of a company in Oregon that irrigates it's parking lots once a year. That establishes annual "use" of the water, and therefore maintains their
water rights. Conservation is not a factor, waste is OK.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
