The Saudi Arabia of Water?!

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Oregon's Senate Republicans finally have a new idea - and it's a doozy. They want to sell water from the Columbia and the Willamette to people in California, Nevada, other states, and yes, even other countries.

No, I'm not kidding. From Mapes:

But state Sen. David Nelson, R-Pendleton, who convinced the Senate R caucus to take up this idea, insists that times have changed and that Oregon could be a Saudi Arabia of water. "We wouldn't allow them to take it," he says of other regions. "We would sell it to them." And he adds that it could make the kind of profits that will help support a level of state services that the taxpayers aren't willing to fund. ...

John DeVoe, executive director of the environmental group, WaterWatch, provides a sample of the kind of reaction this plan could get politically.

"I think Oregon ought to take care of its own before we consider that kind of outlandish scheme," he said, noting that there's already fierce competition among power, fish, farming and urban interests for existing water supplies.

Nelson said he thinks Oregon still has plenty of water downstream from the Columbia River dams that could be sent - likely by tanker - to out-of-state and even foreign users facing increasingly severe shortages. An international market is being developed, he said, and Oregon ought to get into it.

Seriously.

You can't make this stuff up.

  • GregorZap (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Does this mean Mr. Nelson now believes in the Green Economy?

    This seems like a vulture's tactic, circling the dying regions of the world to extract what money we can before they die of thirst.

    I've got a great idea where Mr. Nelson can go plant a tree!!!

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I guess they feel that if we already ship out electricity from the Oregon Dams to other places, and not use that electicity here where it is generated, why not give thwem the water that makes the electicity too.

    It really irks me that much of the hydro electicity that is generated at The Dalles, John Day, and McNary is used by others outside the region. And now they want the water with it too? How bored are these people?

  • (Show?)

    What about all that sagebrush between Bend and Burns?

  • (Show?)

    I hate to add any economic realism to Mr. Nelson's plan, since it is politically dead up-front, but does he actually have any concept of how he would transport water at a price people would pay for it? Tanking it by boat would not be cheap and building pipelines not free either. The cost of not wasting water in California would be a lot cheaper for the residents there since most of California's water is used in agriculture at a nominal, subsidized cost that encourages massive waste. Any market pricing scheme, which selling Oregon water would require, would force this practice to be fixed before people would pay to import water.

  • RichW (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I hate to add any economic realism to Mr. Nelson's plan, since it is politically dead up-front, but does he actually have any concept of how he would transport water at a price people would pay for it?"

    About 20 years ago, when water export was first proposed, I came up with this plan.

    The best way would be for enterprising types to raid the plastic recyling bins at the natural foods stores. In the dead of night they would make their way to the Colombia River, where they would fill up the jugs and smuggle them by truck into California for sale on street corners. Thus these Colombian Jug Lords Could make a lot of money, maybe even leading them into the sale of ice.

  • jeff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This just shows that the Republicans can nuttier ideas than the Democrats.

    At least this one probably won't hurt poor people.

    Thanks JK

  • DanK (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Perhaps it is an economically unworkable idea, but I don't think it is laughable or worth being dismissed out of hand. I would rather sell water from the Columbia River than tolerate a casino on its banks; I would rather see ships full of drinking water leaving our ports than boats overflowing with old and 2nd growth timber.

    Good government does cost something, and every every solution to every problem has some penalty. It's phony to pretend we can sustain our present quality of life without making difficult compromises.

    And by the way, many of those "Oregon dams" straddle a Washington border. Furthermore, upstream of the Willamette, most of the Columbia River traces its origins to snows that fall in Washington, Idaho, Montana or BC. Maybe residents of those regions will decide to sell "their water" before we finish mocking the idea.

  • Kurt Chapman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well its an idea anyway; but probably politically and economically DOA. I wonder how all the tribes and farmers around the Klamath region would react to this idea that the state has enough water to export?

  • AdmiralNaismith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oregon Republican policy in a nutshell: if there's something good in our state that benefits most Oregonians, propose selling it to rich people from out of state, at a steep discount from its actual value.

    Maybe Oregon Republicans can trick some native Oregonians into voting for them, but it's obvious their actual constituents are far, far away.

  • (Show?)

    And by the way, many of those "Oregon dams" straddle a Washington border. Furthermore, upstream of the Willamette, most of the Columbia River traces its origins to snows that fall in Washington, Idaho, Montana or BC. Maybe residents of those regions will decide to sell "their water" before we finish mocking the idea.

    I had the same thought with respect to Washington. But while it's true that several other states and Canada could also tap into the Columbia, simple geography would seem to indicate that Oregon and Washington are overwhelmingly better situated to actually pull it off profitably.

  • tr (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey -- Let's not study an idea because we're liberals !

    You guys are so smart !

  • Steve Bucknum (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The new way to spell Republican: Crazy

  • Steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Doesn't the amount the water would bring and how much we can spare make a difference.

    Ponder me this.

    If "outsiders" are willing to pay a fortune for some of our water that will never be missed or hurt the environment, what then, makes this a bad idea?

    I'll guess that by the time the Columbia reaches Portland their are many millions of gallons per day that could be tapped without notice. And of course during many months of the year tremendous excesses exist in most if not all our major rivers.

    The immediate rejection of this idea may end up equalling the insanity of the blind Blue rejection of online charter schools.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve, the problem with this idea is that so far it is a slogan, not a well thought out detailed plan.

    If the Senate Republicans would answer some questions, that would be a different story.

    For instance:

    *Would they be selling the water at market rates?

    *Do they know there are out of state customers willing to buy market rate water, or do some/all those customers rely on subsidized water for irrigation?

    *Do the Republican Senators know (from town hall meetings, not just polling) that their consituents are on board with this idea?

    *Do we know for a fact how much water could be exported without harming fish, electricity production, or a variety of Oregon uses?

    *Would the money raised if this proposal was acceptable go into a dedicated fund (for agriculture, or state police, or some other specified use) or would there be Republicans suggesting the proceeds should go back as a rebate like the kicker?

    In other words, have they thought it through, or does it just sound like a dandy slogan no one will question?

    I reject one-liner soundbite proposals unless I know the details. Does that make me a "lefty" or just someone who knows logistics are important and implementation can turn out far different than supporters of an idea expected?

  • (Show?)

    Well said, LT. Lack of knee-jerk support doesn't necessarily constitute knee-jerk opposition.

    Personally, I'd like to hear more concrete specifics such as you've suggested.

    If, for example, the water were withdrawn near the mouth of the Columbia - long after everyone upstream has made whatever use of it they wished to - then I think it's at least an interesting idea.

  • (Show?)

    This is an extremely bad idea, at least in current legal circumstances. Those interested in it should have a look into why both U.S. states and Canadian provinces have opposed comparable proposals relating to Great Lakes water.

    The legal problems come with the World Trade Organization and its sovereignty-usurping rules.

    At present bulk water is not an export commodity that falls under WTO jurisdiction, at least not in North America, and thus can be governed by our historical laws involving water use rights, as well as other laws, rules and regulations we may wish to have relating to ecological, recreational, fishing, electrical generation, and public health aspects of the Columbia watershed, as well as novel ideas just beginning to be explored such a attempted rehabilitation of overtaxed aquifers.

    But turn bulk water into a U.S. export commodity, and all such laws and regulations addressing manifold legitimate public purposes are put at peril. I mean public interests in the broad sense that encompasses legal recognition, preservation and equitable adjudication of private rights and claims as well as shared, common or collective use rights and claims.

    Once in WTO jurisdiction, all such public purposes become subordinated to the mere question of whether laws or regulations to serve them are "obstacles to trade," a question answered by a secretive body not representative of nor responsible to the people in any way. Findings against such laws or regulations either subject our public fisc to raids in "compensation," allowing a form of corporate blackmail, or to punitive "retaliatory" sanctions against other U.S. economic interests.

    In the global scale, water is one of the key areas in which adaptation to climate change in the context of projected continuing human population growth for the next 50 years or so is going to be required. That adaptation needs to be developed putting ethical considerations first, above knee-jerk market ideology. Market mechanisms, if adopted for some purposes, need to be well and closely regulated, while exploitative rent-seeking through control of a substance necessary for survival, based on ill-thought out "privatization," should be avoided. Proposals that tend in that direction, or could lead to such situations as (nominally) unintended consequences should be fought vigorously.

    The burden of proof should be on proponents any scheme to show that it does not have such consequences.

  • (Show?)

    Kevin,

    By the time the water gets to the mouth it is no longer fresh water. Keep in mind that the tide reaches Portland. I don't know where it starts to shift toward non-drinkable, but I doubt it is the water we think of as "fresh" much past Portland. Regardless, it will still have to go through all of the filtering and chemical treating that potable water requires, in addition to the transportation costs.

  • Bill Holmer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    SHHH! Don't tell the Canadians. They might divert the water in the Columbia River before it gets to the U.S. just like we Americans have diverted almost all of the water in the Colorado River before it gets to Mexico.

  • Bill Holmer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oregon Republicans also don't appear to know the difference between priorities that "complement" each other, and politicians who "compliment" each other.

  • (Show?)

    Water, like air, is a basic human right and any effort to make a profit from a life or death event would be morally and ethically wrong.

    Given that some 90+% of water is for agriculture, I suspect a better use of our water would be the production of food crops which would be needed before drinking water.

  • Steve Packer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Being a fisherman, I have a biased view of river water use. After all, it is a fundamental truth that fish need water, notwithstanding the Bush decision on the Klamath.

    A healthy river has an unimpeded flow from its origin to the sea. Migratory fish, like salmon, depend on virtually every aspect of a healthy river. And, some of that is the amount of flow that reaches to ocean. The plume of fresh (actually a bit brackish at that point) extends at least 5 miles into the sea. The resulting habitat is alive with aspects of the food chain, possibly from the mixing of the waters of differing salinity and temperature. (And, possibly from the nitrogen load from excessive fertilization of upriver crops.)

    I’d want to see the science that supports any more removal of water from the Columbia before we encourage yet another demand on the water.

  • Douglas K. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If there's going to be a "Saudi Arabia of water" it's gonna be Antarctica. Or Greenland. Maybe Canada or Russia. In the USA, I'm guessing Alaska has the most.

    Seriously ... Oregon just doesn't have all that much to spare.

  • Sam Geggy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Perhaps we are more like the Belgium of water? Precariously situated if anyone wants to get physical on the resources; but also sweetly situated on the overall hydropolitical map? As to drinking water vs. crops water? Non sequitur. Try going without water, try going without your many beverages daily made of water-and-something. There is no more-important-than. Disastrous premise, not a choice. Balance must be the focal point always in the reasoning around water. We can live on less food and do some going without, but water/drink is the daily non-negotiable you do not get in touch with until you must endure the loss of it on a more-than-short term basis.

  • John DeVoe (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The thinking of that visionary leader, Herbert Hoover, is apparently alive and well in some circles in Oregon. As Hoover said - "Every drop of water that runs to the sea without yielding its full commercial returns to the nation is an economic waste.” Unless, of course, you're a migrating salmon or anything else that relies on a reasonably intact river and estuary to support your life and livelihood.

    This is an extremely bad idea. Like many of the Columbia River water proposals promoted recently and not so recently, this would trigger a race to the bottom on the Columbia and elsewhere. Water is a public resource. It belongs to all of us and it supports public values and serves public purposes that eclipse the sum of money it might bring if commodified and traded.

    I see no analysis of the carbon impacts of shipping our water around. There are huge carbon impacts associated with the energy needed to ship and move water around. California estimates that in 2005 19% of the state's electricity, 30% of the natural gas and 88 million gallons of diesel per year were consumed in water related energy use. See AB 225. (Oh, I get it now - Oregon locates the LNG facilities here so California can have the natural gas needed to move our water to California. Cynical? Perhaps not.)

    One point the proponents of this concept don't acknowledge is that Oregon already exports huge volumes of water through the crops and products that leave our ports and are sent around the world. In effect, water poor regions and states are already trading on their deficit positions in water by buying crops and products grown and made here.

    However, because water is free, given to agricultural users without charge, Oregon does not recover anything for it. Because the water itself is free, it's not a cost factor in the price of the crops we export. We can argue about the cost of infrastructure to deliver water to crops, but the fact remains the water itself is free.

    Perhaps it's time we considered a modest fee for water that could then be accounted for in the price of crops exported. The sums recovered could pay for the services that the proponents claim Oregonians don't want to pay for. Unfortunately, the proponents of this proposal would almost uniformly reject a fee for water - unless it's paid by someone else and imposes costs on the river, public values and public resources that they don't have to account for.

  • Unit (unverified)
    (Show?)

    John DeVoe's reference to Hoover's comments is very relevant, I think. It seems many still deny the law of unintended consequences. Hydro power is one of the more glaring examples of a flawless idea gone wrong. This scheme smacks of another.

  • (Show?)

    If we were to just call something near Pendleton, "Al-Aqua," maybe Sen. Nelson would be happy and go back into his hole.

  • (Show?)

    Given the problems with water in the Klamath Basin a few years ago, do we really want to sell our water? As many others have suggested, this is a bad idea.

    Yesterday I was listening to NPR online. They had Thomas Frank on talking about his book, Indictment Of Conservatism. This is one idea that just made me immediately think of that.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93253890

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Back in the 70s, L.A. county commissioner Ken Hahn (big liberal, father of the former L.A. mayor) seriously proposed diverting water from Oregon to California. I recall one scheme involved cutting a canal from the headwaters of the Deschutes into the Klamath basin (well, that solves that problem!) and then into a river flowing south. It was just goofy, considering the immense complications that the Army Corps of Engineers would face, and the likelihood that half the water would evaporate before it reached Southern California. I'm not sure anyone else in L.A. bought into Hahn's nutty idea, but it didn't cost him politically.

connect with blueoregon