Restoring the Everglades to ensure South Florida's freshwater supply
news.fiu.edu
news.fiu.edu
Honestly it sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. I'm sure companies are buying rights to water, but I suspect it's for straightforward near term interests, like, say, Poland Spring's owners buying water rights so they can sell bottles of water - not because they think they will be our overlords in 20 years or whatever.
I receive internal company newsletters that talk about the need to get more water contracts due to climate change and the opportunities/competition ahead. It's not conspiracy, it's commerce. Like real estate, you buy it now when it's cheap because you predict it'll be worth a fortune in a decade or two.
Contracts with whom?
Isn’t that what fruit companies like delmonte did to Central America in the mid 20th century? Seizing all of the farmland with the support of the government to grow fruit for Americans?
They can’t just seize the water rights, they would have to purchase them at fair market value. Land with perpetual water rights happen to be worth *a lot* of money, which is why there haven’t been more government entities buying out current holders of water rights.
Step 2: Let market for these properties crash
Step 3: Buy at FMV
The problem with privatization is that it tends to turn into a monopoly that extracts a toll from those worst positioned to bear the burden. That of course doesn't change if you let them to rot. What should have happened instead is that the world bank should have helped to finance the new system as a way to make up for their previous disastrous handling of the situation. How they would have done that in light of corruption and local graft is another problem entirely.
You can't just take 20% of people's meager income (more than they spend on food) for a first level requirement like clean water. That's the sort of infrastructure that the world bank exists to bankroll, once the necessities are taken care of a society has a much better chance to lift itself from poverty.
> What should have happened instead is that the world bank should have helped to finance the new system as a way to make up for their previous disastrous handling of the situation.
But does the World Bank even do that kind of financing? They and the IMF seem only intent on financing assured projects in developed countries or projects in developing countries which simply siphon money into politicians' pockets, with their tacit knowledge. That was part of the motivation behind Asian Investment Bank, and the other Chinese propped competitors.
My point was that in spite of the "revolution" succeeding, and in spite of the revolutionary leaders taking charge of power for a record number of years, the town continues to suffer from the lack of water.
When the humanity about these things is lost and it all becomes just numbers people suffer. And right now they are suffering too but they are at least nominally in control of their fate. The best solution would be one where graft and greed would be cut out because to just have a choice between the two is always going to be bad for those caught in the middle.
There should at least be a power function for water prices where using more water costs more and more to disincentivize waste.
That seems like charity, which granted i am all for, but i don't think the World Bank is a charitable organization, plus 300 million is a MASSIVE amount for charity. In the absence of charity it seems like the two choices are 1. Have no water or 2. Pay a lot to have water. At least with 2 you have the potential for the lowering of water prices over time.
Is there an alternative? Or am i wrong about the world bank and these charitable acts are it's purpose?
From Wiki: "In 2013, Burry reopened his hedge fund, this time called Scion Asset Management, filing reports as an exempt reporting adviser (ERA) active in the state of California and approved by the SEC.[19] He has focused much of his attention on investing in water, gold, and farm land. He has said, "Fresh, clean water cannot be taken for granted. And it is not—water is political, and litigious."[20]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Burry
As Warren Buffett has said “being too early to something is the same as being wrong about it” or something along those lines
> nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Certainly it is "just" to simply pay what the private landholder originally paid for the land that carries with it the water rights?
That won't fly - someone may have bought a valuable asset 50 years ago that is now worth 100X what they paid for it - only giving them what they paid for it can hardly be called 'just compensation' and I suspect most all courts would agree.
Water rights speculation has apparently only been going on in Arizona for around 30 years. While some of this speculation may be net beneficial (use of recharge areas to recharge ground water), others just seem speculative and aimed at making a premium when municipalities are eventually forced to buy.
This isn't to downplay climate change or the risk of rising sea levels. These are very real, but I think that many people overestimate it. Even for Miami, which is very elevation, I don't think we will see it underwater... but we will see lots of flooding since the sewage systems won't be able to drain when the ocean level gets too close to the land. This already happens, but it will get worse.
Everglades restoration would also help the aquifer fight off rising seas that make it vulnerable to saltwater intrusion and pollution caused by run-off from agricultural lands and residential areas.
“Restoration is key because when water can once again move north to south, more clean water can fill up the Everglades and the aquifer, allowing fresh water to push back the salt water,” Crowl says.I was going to make a refined criticism but this typo makes it clear - neither you nor anyone else knows what is happening with sea level rise. Why question "NOA" - named NOAA ? because of recent activity in the western antarctic ice shelf.
sorry to dismiss this comforting thought, but no, nobody knows what the sea levels will be in the year 2100 -- this is a serious situation and it is getting worse now.
What's doubly distressing is that it's been so highly politicized. I'm not $ure why that i$...
In south Florida, the estimated sea-level rise for the intermediate-high emissions scenario is approximately 5.5 feet by 2100. Attaining 2 feet of SLR requires an intermediate-low scenario. The high scenario results in 7 feet.
A nice viewer is here: https://coast.noaa.gov/slr
https://sciencecouncil.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/1...
This is noted in the document you linked to, where they mention most of the models project an increase in of Atlantic hurricanes reaching Category 4 or 5 even at an optimistic 2 degree C rise. They do note it's somewhat uncertain though, I'll give you that.
The Everglades are 0-8 ft[1] above sea level and average depth of the water is 4-5 ft[2]. If that elevation is measured at the surface of the water, then it would only take a few feet of sea-level rise to contaminate the Everglades.
> Even for Miami, which is very elevation, I don't think we will see it underwater
Most of Miami-Dade County was projected to be under water by 2060[3], and that was before the recent discovery that glaciers are melting much faster than we expected[4].
1. https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/news/parkstatistics.htm
2. http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/En-Ge/Everglades.html
3. https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/scientists-warn-south-flo...
4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/05/0...
The first thing you'll notice living in Florida is coastal flooding, but the imminent and more pressing danger is salt water intrusion. You don't need to cover all the surface of land with water for that happen. If sea levels rise only 2 feet the fresh water sources along the coasts are threatened from salt water coming in from the sides. Florida is particularly vulnerable because it has very porous limestone geology. This geology allows for deeper interior advancement of salt water compared to other coastal areas, meaning less sea level rise is required for large fresh water impacts
Here's a good visualization on what salt water intrusion is https://blogs.egu.eu/network/gfgd/2018/02/12/saltwater-intru...
Here's an article specifically about the threat to Florida's drinking water https://cnsmaryland.org/2020/11/23/salt-levels-in-floridas-g...
"With nearly 30 years of data showing significant progress, it’s clear that farmers in the EAA have done more to improve water quality in South Florida than any other private group in state history."