Saudi Arabia Using 140-Year-Old Loophole to Soak Up California's Scarce Water
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Is the loophole that you can export food? California exports a lot of food, apparently $20 billion/year worth of it (see https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/). Is there a reason why this food should be different?
Is the loophole that a foreign company owns the farms? There's a lot of foreign investment in other industries in California (and everywhere). Is there a reason why this industry should be different?
I'm just not seeing what is unique about this.
The “140-year-old loophole” is the free-of-charge 1877 federal unquantified water rights grant in Blythe, which they (among others) are exploiting.
If they want to disallow water to be diverted to farming, that’s one thing, but singling one entity in this whole deal seems to be odd.
That's why the article is calling attention to the “140-year-old loophole” that is being exploited.
> If they want to disallow water to be diverted to farming, that’s one thing, but singling one entity in this whole deal seems to be odd.
They are singling out a federal grant from when the part of California involved was essentially uninhabited and the Colorado River wasn't heavily used that gives unlimited, no-usage-charge water to users in the particular locality where the Saudi farm is located.
Side note, but while prisons don't generate all that much economic activity they count for congressional apportionment while the residents can't vote, so that's 6000 fewer people you need to worry about on election day if you're a politician.