A US lawmaker from the state of Arizona has introduced legislation in Congress that would impose a 300 percent tax on the sale of water-intensive crops grown by foreign companies in the state, in a bid to curb the extensive use of water in the drought-stricken state.

  • xkforce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is more of an anti-foreigner measure than it is about protecting water resources. If they cared, they would have curbed consumption in general.

    • alienanimals@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      85
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s bad when US citizens are sucking up all the water.

      It’s even worse when a foreign country that has made hostile attacks against the United States does the same thing.

    • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      Whatever reigns this shit in. I say this as a liberal stuck in a rural Arizona town who’s water is being stolen. About 10 years ago a farm popped up just outside of town and it now consumes most of the valley we live in. This farm pumps 10x the consumption of the entire city with a population of 80,000. Peoples wells are running dry and this dude pays nothing for this water.

      This is the desert. Nothing is supposed to grow here. We probably shouldn’t even live here.

      Fuck these guys, I don’t care where they are from. But if it takes xenophobia for the idiots in this state to vote on it, go ahead. If the crops are for local use, well, we did fine before they showed up. We didn’t need those farms. So they will go away. If the market for these stupid unethical crops isn’t propped up by foreign consumption they wouldn’t exist.

    • skhayfa@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Still it will be more than a drop in the bucket. The amount of water pumped for these water intensive cropd was insane.

    • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Its the consumption of of water. One of the plants that is likely targeted by the tax is alfalfa, which is a plant used for animal feed. The top importers of alfalfa is china, uae and saudi arabia. Alfalfa is a very water intensive plant and most of its grown in the southwest/California.

      It basically makes states $ at the cost that its a huge water drainer. Albeit not Arizona, keep in mind in california, resident use of water is only like 5% of the supply, and wouldnt be suprised of Arizona would be similar. Were in a drought basically to subsidize the price of poultry/cattle for other major nations

      • xkforce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it was about water, it wouldnt matter who was doing the extracting. Removing water is removing water and everyone doing it no matter where they were based should be charged that tax but they’re not. Like… if foreign companies were the main ones using a ton of water, there would be no need to target that tax to them specifically because theyd be hit with it just by using all those water resources anyway. But targeting it suggests that the state is fine with American companies wasting water, they just dont want foreigners doing it.

        • SpeedLimit55@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well yes but this foreign company is using the water to grow a product that is exported. Foreign companies who are doing the same thing to sell locally may get screwed by this, but I’m not sure how many would be affected.

    • flipht@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agree completely, but hear me out. It’s politically difficult to ask ranchers and farmers to do anything. Like historically, a lot of our domestic policy centers around keeping them happy - the idea being that they are providing such a vital service that we don’t want to mess with them much.

      That’s why Bundy thought he was going to get away with free grazing forever, and why huge swathes of homestead were granted a few hundred years ago - gotta get people turning dirt into food/money.

      So even if this is primarily anti-foreign, it still provides a sorely needed example of legislation that could pass, and then the practice in bureaucracy needed to enforce it. It can be expanded. Let them pass this, and then lobby and advocate for adding groups to it in future legislative sessions.

      • skhayfa@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not a bill against farmers. In this case, farmland is leased to a Saudi company called Fondomonte, which uses the state’s groundwater to grow alfalfa, which is then exported to feed cows in the country.