New York investors snapping up Colorado River water rights, betting big on an scarce resource

Want to convince independent voters we need a new direction? They are gonna squeal scarcity on every commodity and necessity, cause it drives the value up. Do we want eastern investors buying up huge swathes of land? much like the railroad barons bought up land for their tracks and stations and made themselves tycoons.

Nothing wrong with it, perse, but quit banging the complicated WEF theory, it's about the money that will resonate with independents more than complicated conspiracy theories no matter if they are valid or not

www.cbsnews.com...

With the federal government poised to force Western states to change how they manage the alarming shortfall in Colorado River water, there is one constituency with a growing interest in the river's fate that's little known to some: Wall Street investors.


Private investment firms are showing a growing interest in an increasingly scarce natural resource in the American West: water in the Colorado River, a joint investigation by CBS News and The Weather Channel has found. For some of the farmers and cities that depend on the river as a lifeline, that interest is concerning.

"Our only source of water is the Colorado," says Joe Bernal, who raises cattle and grows crops on land across Colorado's Grand Valley, relying on water from the drought-depleted Colorado River.

"That's all we've got is that river," he says.

Bernal's family came to the Grand Valley nearly 100 years ago, and he has lived there his whole life.

But now, he has a new neighbor: a New York-based investment firm called Water Asset Management, which he says bought a farm in the valley around 2017 that Bernal now rents and helps operate.

According to public records, the hedge fund — which is headquartered on Madison Avenue in Manhattan — has bought at least $20 million worth of land in Western Colorado in the last five years, making it one of the largest landowners in the Grand Valley.

The hedge fund, founded in 2005, says it invests exclusively in assets and companies that ensure water supply and quality. In 2021, its co-founder and president, Matthew Diserio, called water in the United States "a trillion-dollar market opportunity."

Bernal says that when first heard of the firm, he was concerned.

"Would I have invited them here? No." Bernal says. "Am I glad that there's a big company here buying properties in our valley, under our system? Not really."

I remember reading more than a few years ago that big companies and individuals were snapping up water resources all over the world. Food and Shelter are important but without water you can kiss your life good bye.

It's our own damn fault. Nobody should ever own any rights to water. It should be free for everyone, knowing we need it to live.
We are becoming idiots, controlled by evil bastards.

Stop buying bottled water people.

Too bad the general public will never wake up to the problem. They will take their water rations, and say thank you!

a reply to: putnam6

The "railroad barons" didn't buy up property. It was given to them by the US Government in exchange for building the railroads. Only in the Eastern States did they have to buy property.

I agree with your statement about water rights. I just think you should get things "right" so that your entire statement can't be discredited because of things like this.

Chinese buying water rights in Hokkaido Japan.

Chinese buying water rights in Alaska.

Over the years people through their government agencies had built put the garbage disposal garbage yards over water reserves especially there in Fontana California it's a six society terrible I tell you.

a reply to: putnam6

Is nestlé one of this group. i haven't bought anything that says nestlé on it since these evil bastards started buying up water rights.

a reply to: putnam6

This reminds me of the lucrative avocado business that exploded in Chile in the 90s, it called for a huge demand in water and since Chile has laws that allow the privatization of water entire rivers were auctioned off and then just diverted or used for cash crops.

It left entire villages and towns without water. It also goes deeper than that as well, foreign company's use the water as investments for possible energy infrastructure projects.

At the end of the day, the Chilean people don't even have basic water rights, or even a chance to veto or work towards their own energy projects.

I didn't know water was set for private sale in the US tho, interesting.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: putnam6

Is nestlé one of this group. i haven't bought anything that says nestlé on it since these evil bastards started buying up water rights.

You might want to research whatever brand you buy now to make sure Nestle's isn't the parent company. They sell several name brands as well as generic; Poland Spring, Deer Park and Pure Life for example.

When the vast majority of water is used for fracking and agriculture some common sense oversight would be beneficial, but profits seem to be the only criteria considered.
Arizona has become a major rice producer, most of which is exported. Growing rice requires a LOT of water, so rather than drought friendly crops for the desert region they grow rice?

Mexico gets 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado river water annually. Perhaps the 1944 treaty that permitted this should be revisited?

Life cannot continue without water, but people are conditioned to focus on weather; the melting glaciers, rising temperatures, increased weather events-all because of Co2. China has been living with some of the most polluted air on the planet for many decades, but they wouldn't still be here without water.

'Global warming' is not the greatest crisis we face, outside of politicians. It's way past time to set some common sense priorities.

a reply to: nugget1

from the horses mouth,

The company notorious for sending out hordes of ‘internet warriors’ to defend the company and its actions online in comments and message boards (perhaps we’ll find some below) even takes a firm stance behind Monsanto’s GMOs and their ‘proven safety’. In fact, the former Nestle CEO actually says that his idea of water privatization is very similar to Monsanto’s GMOs. In a video interview, Nestle Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe states that there has never been ‘one illness’ ever caused from the consumption of GMOs.

Nestle CEO: Water Is Not A Human Right, Should Be Privatized

I pee in your water!
So does my dog...

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: putnam6

This reminds me of the lucrative avocado business that exploded in Chile in the 90s, it called for a huge demand in water and since Chile has laws that allow the privatization of water entire rivers were auctioned off and then just diverted or used for cash crops.

It left entire villages and towns without water. It also goes deeper than that as well, foreign company's use the water as investments for possible energy infrastructure projects.

At the end of the day, the Chilean people don't even have basic water rights, or even a chance to veto or work towards their own energy projects.

I didn't know water was set for private sale in the US tho, interesting.

Mmmmmm, turkey with sliced swiss and avocado submarine sammiches are my favorite! 🦃 🧀 🥑🥖 🧡😋

a reply to: chiefsmom

I agree, it should be at the very very least legal to collect rainwater. I am shocked that in most places it's not...

a reply to: BernnieJGato

checkit

I live on Lake Michigan and had a well for years. Someone decided we had to have city water because it's safer. It all comes out of the lake anyway. They plugged our wells and my electric bill didn't change but now I have a $60 a month water bill. I still have another well for the lawn that they don't know about.

a reply to: DoomsdayDude


Ahhem, and now back to our regularly scheduled forum topic! We can always turn pure electricity into pure lifewater through ocean water desalination and/or atmospheric condenser plants as well am I right people? 🌊⚡🧂🚫+⛅❄️🤏💦 ⁉️

a reply to: chris_stibrany

here's something else you might find even more interesting. just about every major corporation is a partner of the WEF.
list of who is listed and who's not doesn't really mean much, i'm sure that some hide behind their brands name or who is therir biggest share holders.
you see that coca cola, nestle, and you'll also find Black Rock is a fairly big share holder of the ones who aren't and they are a partner in the WEF. for example they own the largest share of general mills who aren't. and black rock is a partner in the WEF.

so it just who you choose to fight, but in the end it's pretty much a losing battle when it comes to the money gods.

choose your filter at the bottom of the page and look at the names.

Our Partners

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Perhaps alternate and local currencies backed by real estate, livestock, gold/silver are more important than ever.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: putnam6

The "railroad barons" didn't buy up property. It was given to them by the US Government in exchange for building the railroads. Only in the Eastern States did they have to buy property.

I agree with your statement about water rights. I just think you should get things "right" so that your entire statement can't be discredited because of things like this.

Not to hijack my own thread, but the theory I prescribed is that the tycoons were established already by the time they hit the midwest. They pushed tracks farther west on land given by the government but the railroads still controlled where the stations were or were not built and controlled the route IIRC. For instance, pretty sure one of the railroad barons was heavily invested in lumber industry and every station happened to be fairly close to his lumber mils.

I'll have to research and pull up citations, but it isn't just because I used to play Railroad Tycoon LOL

worldwiderails.com...

Railroad Expansion
It was not until the late 1840s when railroad construction increased exponentially. The desire to expand westward was evident, and was especially evident upon the country’s acquisition of California from southern neighbor, Mexico. Early on, the furthest railroads stretched towards the Midwest, connecting much of the eastern seaboard with Chicago and St. Louis.

Various railroad magnates such as Leland Stanford, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and Collis P. Huntington, just to name a few, ruthlessly pioneered their railroad empire westward. Railroads expanded first westward to Chicago and St. Louis. The PRR reached Chicago via its acquisition of the Fort Wayne Line, and southwest to St. Louis, with the acquisition of the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago, and St. Louis Railroad, commonly called the “Panhandle Route”.

Not my original source but it supports the OP's theory nicely the green text is pertinent but really the whole quote and even the article itself shows the Railroad Barons' sphere of influence was far and wide even as it stretched to the Pacific

thenewamerican.com...

The first clear attempt by political entrepreneurs to “game” the system occurred immediately after passage of the Pacific Railway Act of 1862, when “The Big Four” were given control of the financing, construction, and operation of the Central Pacific Railroad. These were Leland Stanford, Collis Huntington, Charles Crock, and Mark Hopkins. Each of the Big Four invested $1,500 in their newly formed company, Central Pacific Railroad, and, using 30-year, six-percent U.S. Government Bonds, started building the railroad east from Sacramento. These bonds were issued at the rate of $16,000 per mile on the plains west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, $32,000 per mile of track laid between the mountains, and $48,000 per mile of track laid over the mountains. In addition, the 1862 Act initially granted the railroads 10 square miles of public land for every mile laid, but that grant was increased to 20 square miles in 1864. By the time the Union Pacific Railroad met the Central Pacific Railroad in Promontory Point in Utah in 1869, the two companies had been given 242,000 square miles, a territory larger than Germany.

According to Norman Tutorow in his 1970 article in Southern California Quarterly, “Stanford’s Responses to Competition: Rhetoric Versus Reality,”

Leland Stanford and the men who ran the CPRR paid lip-service to the idea of free competition, but in practice sought to dominate competing railroad and shipping lines…. Stanford and his associates repeatedly entered into pooling arrangements to prevent competition, bought out competitors, or forced rivals to agree not to compete. Stanford and his partners viewed laissez-faire as applicable only to government controls, and not to … competition within the system.

One of the ways the Big Four milked the system was by setting up their own coal company to sell coal to their railroad. That company mined coal for two dollars a ton, but sold it to their railroad for six dollars a ton, and pocketed the difference. In other words, the Big Four essentially stole from the government that was financing the railroad — the railroad was just an intermediary involved in the theft.

The terminus of the Union Central Railroad, also authorized by the Act of 1862, was determined in a politically expedient decision by President Abraham Lincoln. In 1857, Thomas Durant, another political entrepreneur, hired Lincoln to represent his M&M Railroad in a lawsuit brought by some steamboat operators. When the Act of 1862 left the decision of the terminus in the hands of the President, Lincoln took the advice of his former client, and selected Omaha, Nebraska.

During this time, not all railroad magnates tried to “game” the system, however. James J. Hill built the Great Northern Railroad, he said, “without any government aid, even the right of way, through hundreds of miles of public lands, being paid for in cash.”

a reply to: putnam6

What should concern everyone more is this part in your link.

Congress recently allocated $4 billion in drought funding that can be used to pay farmers to fallow their land and not use their water. Some Western states, including Colorado, are also considering paying some farmers to keep their lands fallow.

So instead of coming up with a solution, they make everything worse by paying farmers not to farm most likely creating more shortages and higher prices for everyone. Awesome.

and there is this...

We need to consider the possibility of TPTB knowing we have other potential aquifers in the US and elsewhere but will keep this knowledge hidden to again promote the "scarcity" for more profitability per drop

news.climate.columbia.edu...

In a new survey of the sub-seafloor off the U.S. Northeast coast, scientists have made a surprising discovery: a gigantic aquifer of relatively fresh water trapped in porous sediments lying below the salty ocean. It appears to be the largest such formation yet found in the world. The aquifer stretches from the shore at least from Massachusetts to New Jersey, extending more or less continuously out about 50 miles to the edge of the continental shelf. If found on the surface, it would create a lake covering some 15,000 square miles. The study suggests that such aquifers probably lie off many other coasts worldwide, and could provide desperately needed water for arid areas that are now in danger of running out.

The researchers employed innovative measurements of electromagnetic waves to map the water, which remained invisible to other technologies. “We knew there was fresh water down there in isolated places, but we did not know the extent or geometry,” said lead author Chloe Gustafson, a PhD. candidate at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “It could turn out to be an important resource in other parts of the world.” The study appears this week in the journal Scientific Reports.

The first hints of the aquifer came in the 1970s, when companies drilled off the coastline for oil, but sometimes instead hit fresh water. Drill holes are just pinpricks in the seafloor, and scientists debated whether the water deposits were just isolated pockets or something bigger. Starting about 20 years ago, study coauthor Kerry Key, now a Lamont-Doherty geophysicist, helped oil companies develop techniques to use electromagnetic imaging of the sub-seafloor to look for oil. More recently, Key decided to see if some form of the technology could also be used also to find fresh-water deposits. In 2015, he and Rob L. Evans of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution spent 10 days on the Lamont-Doherty research vessel Marcus G. Langseth making measurements off southern New Jersey and the Massachusetts island of Martha’s Vineyard, where scattered drill holes had hit fresh-water-rich sediments.

If water from the outer parts of the aquifer were to be withdrawn, it would have to be desalinated for most uses, but the cost would be much less than processing seawater, said Key. “We probably don’t need to do that in this region, but if we can show there are large aquifers in other regions, that might potentially represent a resource” in places like southern California, Australia, the Mideast or Saharan Africa, he said. His group hopes to expand its surveys.