Friday, July 27, 2007

Water rights and water theft.

This post took a few days to write, but as it is such an important issue to the Southwest, it needed to be finished. I encourage any reader to take note of this and refer back to any updates, because this will be a decades old argument before there is a resolution.

Just over a week ago, Governor Schwarzenegger held a few press conferences and spoke about the
dangers of a drought affecting California, particularly Southern California and the San Joaquin valley, which is the lifeblood of California agriculture. He proposed a plan to build more dams and repair the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, including the San Luis reservoir. He also discussed the All-American Canal, which runs along the U.S.-Mexico border through Imperial Valley, California and parts of Arizona. To give you a brief background, this canal was built in 1940 and replaced a similar canal which ran through the U.S. and Mexico. It is an earthen canal with no lining. It connects with a few other canals and brings Colorado river water through Imperial Valley, the most arid, but 4th most productive agricultural region in the United States.

One of Schwarzenegger’s proposals is to finally line portions of the canal to prevent loss of water through seepage, which is not a new idea. By doing this, Californians would recoup 67,000 acre-feet of water each year, enough for half a million people. Most of the water will go to the San Diego County Water Authority, with 17% reserved to settle water disputes with American Indian tribes in San Diego County. For more information on this project, see
here.

In response to the Governor’s call for help, the LA Times responded with a riveting (sarcasm)editorial piece, dated July, 21, 2007, entitled the “All-American deathtrap”. (In case this link goes dead due to membership requirements, you have the date and paper to see for yourself). Their concern? Not water for Americans, but, you guessed it, illegal immigrants. Their concern over putting in a concrete lining: the water will be too swift, and the sides of the canal to steep to scale and more illegals who try to cross will die. They advocate not lining the canal, but if it is lined, they demand the government provide lifelines, buoys, and steps in the concrete.

The editorial piece ignores the reasonable response of the Imperial Irrigation District, saying this will increase liability. The L.A. Times this makes no sense. Well, we have illegal immigrants who sue for being shot at
while evading arrest and turning on Border Patrol agents, lawsuits for injuries sustained after crashing their vehicle while speeding away from the Border Patrol, and lawsuits saying they did not get medical care "quick" enough while in Border Patrol custody, even for ailments not related to their border crossing. How long do you honestly think it would take for a Mexican family to sue because a buoy line was not tethered properly, or better yet, it inadequate as a safety measure? The editorial failed to mention that the reservoir is already fenced and has numerous no trespassing signs.

Even more importantly, they add to their flimsy editorial the tired old line that “border security is good, but . . .", completely ignoring that no one is forcing people to cross the border illegally and risk their own lives. Once again, the call for the government of Mexico to improve conditions in their country is nowhere to be heard.

Why would the L.A. Times be opposed to making it easier for Southern California to obtain water? Last time I checked, L.A. was in Southern California. The reason is simple: this is not the main reason why they are opposed to the lining. The story you did not hear involves water seepage and lawsuits going back years before Governor Schwarzenegger even considered running for office. The earliest story I found went back to 1998. You see, the
water seepage is used by farmers in Mexico, near the border, and they don’t like the idea of lining the canal, which will cut down the water they are stealing. It’s not like they don’t get water. In fact, there is a 1944 treaty wherein the United States created dams, waterways and reservoirs, and Mexico has access to a good portion of that water. As the linked study states, in addition to the water seepage that is being taken, Mexico has not followed up with payment of their water obligations by diverting water which flows to the Rio Grande and have fallen behind on their commitments time and time again.

Mexican farmers and environmental groups (of course) have sued the United States, seeking (and obtaining) a temporary injunction, preventing the lining. However, in their quest for a permanent injunction, a federal court has unbelievably sided with America for once, saying that it
lacked jurisdiction over the Mexican claims. Imagine that!

In addition to not paying for what they owe, Mexican farmers and businessmen are upset that the United States “dares” to protect its own interests and does not want Mexican farmers stealing what they are not entitled to. Fortunately, due to a law signed by the President last December, the lining can be started with no delay. We will just have to weather the flood of additional lawsuits which are sure to come.

One again, I see a continuing mentality and pattern when it comes to United States - Mexico relations. The U.S. creates something, then invites their neighbors to participate, only to have our neighboring country violate the terms of the agreement and demand what they are not entitled to. On top of this, they find every opportunity to undermine the spirit of the law and choose to not respect our laws and rights. Then, when the United States finally does something about it, the liberal medica portrays the United States as harming their poor, defenseless neighbor to the South. Does this sound familiar to the illegal immigration problem we face?

No comments: