My Midwest friends are incredulous that alfalfa is being grown with Dolores River water. Remember when there’d be so much surplus alfalfa in pole barns NW of Cortez. Why AZ was allowing an aquifer to be depleted for growing alfalfa for wealthy Saudis is way beyond comprehension!
A year round cow calf operation in snow country needs to put up hay for the winter. I would bet those pole barns were winter feed. There are other stock out here that need to be fed through winter.
Nice numbers on consumptive use. In the Imperial ID I would guess that farmers who grow broccoli and lettuce plant more than one crop a year, say a rotation crop or another "cash" crop (not weed). So the water use would be greater per acre than one crop of broccolli or lettuce. Still not as much as an alfalfa field that gets 4 or 5 cuttings.....Just a note.
Farms in Imperial County are alloted about 6 acre feet by the District under an Equitable Distribution Plan. So a winter vegetable crop grown with 3 AF can be followed by a wheat, sorghum, sudan, maybe spring melon. Water can also be "banked." In 2021, the average alfalfa yield was 8 tons an acre. There was an equivalent tonnage of sudan, bermuda and klein grass. Some forage is used locally. The Brandts are a vertical operation from field to packing plant. There are a number of land and cattle operations. A lot is exported domestically and overseas. There is no dairy industry in the Valley anymore and it has been moving further from the Valley. Depending on the time of harvest, alfalfa hay is better for dairy, dry cow, feedlot, or horses. The Imperial Valley is a highly productive region contributing to an unmet demand for domestic beef and dairy product even if it is not your choice.
I suggest an environmental legal challenge to reduce wasteful overconsumption of Colorado River water by the cattle and water-thirsty feed crop industries in the Imperial Valley. The Salton Sea and surrounding region is increasingly contaminated by toxic agricultural runoff, at times causing catastrophic algae blooms killing fish and migrating birds, and skyrocketing rates of childhood asthma. Phosphorus is the primary cause of toxic algae blooms in waterways. And manure contains high concentrations of phosphorous. So, why are public authorities permitting Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to be sited near the landlocked Salton Sea? For example, near Calipatria and less than a mile from the Sea is a CAFO operated by the Brandt Cattle company. It’s adjacent to the Alamo River flowing into the Sea. The company is obviously concerned to prevent public awareness, even posting a sign prohibiting photography on the public road (Brandt Road) running through the CAFO.
Dont "like" the info, I agree this kind of information on these CAFOs really needs to be put in front of the public "eye"! The damage they do to the environment - air - water - EVERYTHING! Possibly a public relations surge of this information?
This is another issue that belongs to the livestock lobby & it's helpers (politicians).
One solution to the Colorado River water crisis is for the Upper and Lower Basin States to start charging per acre-foot of water use instead of giving the water away for free. All the prior-appropriation western States own the surface and ground water in their State and authorize water rights to be used by agricultural (always the largest water use) for specified beneficial uses like irrigation of crops for a particular time every year according to the particular water right's historic adjudicated priority.
In Idaho, where I live, the State has the authority to charge water users but chooses not to do so. Idaho also has the highest per capita diversion and use of water in the entire country and a modest annual charge by the State of Idaho of $3 per acre foot of any water right would raise over $60,000,000 per year and easily pay the entire annual budget of the Idaho Department of Water Resources. States could set water pricing in a way to incentivize conservation of water and reduce annual use dramatically through their use of pricing as a market-based solution to slow or end declining surface and ground water. The pricing system could vary according to the type of use and could be designed to minimize use for large but non-essential uses like hay and other forage crops while encouraging water use for human food production and drinking water.
Charging appropriately for water use reflects that water has much higher value than acknowledged by the prior-appropriation system and has always been undervalued in our arid landscapes.
Current negotiations between Upper and Lower Basin States in the Colorado River watershed to solve the ongoing water crisis, should could include encouraging States to start charging users per acre-foot of water use.
Of course water in the west is also a deeply political matter and a pricing change of any kind for vested water rights would bring all the entrenched water buffaloes out to complain about any State approved price for water.
Still the current westwide water crisis should be a catalyst to overcoming those seeking to maintain the clearly failing status quo.
I don't think there is any free water, maybe in the upper basin. IID water is $20/AF plus availability fees and some quality fees, city water is more. And alfalfa eventually produces dairy and meat product which I believe qualify as human foods.
Katie Hobbs has been trying to stop Fondemonte . Having driven over much of the state for work this year and seeing the sprawl coming from every town in Az. I'd say we're going to have to find better solutions, to say the least. You wouldn't believe the size of the chip factories north of Phoenix and the housing that hasn't been built yet. There isn't enough river water now....
The takeaway is that water rights laws hopelessly over consume, as more water than exists is allocated, and there's no incentive NOT to "use" it. There seems to be zero political will to change the laws, right? Feels hopeless.
The Imperial Irrigation District folks recognize the need to conserve and preserve the water in the prevailing conditions. And they want to preserve their place in line. To that extent, through the years, they have cooperated with their metropolitan neighbors in conservation projects, concrete lining waterways and transferring conserved water to the cities. Individual operations and the district built systems to capture runoff for reuse. In 2024, the district was on track to use just 2.2 million AF of their 3.1 million AF allotment, a near 30% reduction. The ultimate goal of the IID is a 1.6 million AF reduction by 2026. The lower basin states have been the most immediate in implementing conservation measures (Google search).
I must add - the "use the water or lose it" sounds far too much like the post I read today regarding the Pentagon's "using the surplus BILLIONS from this year's appropriations - I guess they would lose that amount of money in next years "windfall". Not sure exactly why the Air Force Chief of Staff requires a $98,000.00 STEINWAY piano? Interesting, right?
I believe this was right about the same time that SNAP benefits were cut!
""Pentagon spent $93B in a single month, including buying a Steinway piano: The Pentagon spent $93 billion in September 2025—the final month of the fiscal year—its highest end-of-year spending surge since 2008, according to an analysis by the government watchdog Open the Books reported on by The New Republic. Much of the spending appeared driven by “use-it-or-lose-it” budget rules that encourage agencies to exhaust remaining funds before the fiscal deadline. The purchases included items not obviously essential for a war effort, such as a $98,329 Steinway grand piano for the Air Force chief of staff’s residence, $5.3 million in Apple devices, millions of dollars in seafood and steak, and $225 million in furniture.""
My Midwest friends are incredulous that alfalfa is being grown with Dolores River water. Remember when there’d be so much surplus alfalfa in pole barns NW of Cortez. Why AZ was allowing an aquifer to be depleted for growing alfalfa for wealthy Saudis is way beyond comprehension!
A year round cow calf operation in snow country needs to put up hay for the winter. I would bet those pole barns were winter feed. There are other stock out here that need to be fed through winter.
A lot of that was taken to fields to rot following the next year’s cutting.
Nice numbers on consumptive use. In the Imperial ID I would guess that farmers who grow broccoli and lettuce plant more than one crop a year, say a rotation crop or another "cash" crop (not weed). So the water use would be greater per acre than one crop of broccolli or lettuce. Still not as much as an alfalfa field that gets 4 or 5 cuttings.....Just a note.
Farms in Imperial County are alloted about 6 acre feet by the District under an Equitable Distribution Plan. So a winter vegetable crop grown with 3 AF can be followed by a wheat, sorghum, sudan, maybe spring melon. Water can also be "banked." In 2021, the average alfalfa yield was 8 tons an acre. There was an equivalent tonnage of sudan, bermuda and klein grass. Some forage is used locally. The Brandts are a vertical operation from field to packing plant. There are a number of land and cattle operations. A lot is exported domestically and overseas. There is no dairy industry in the Valley anymore and it has been moving further from the Valley. Depending on the time of harvest, alfalfa hay is better for dairy, dry cow, feedlot, or horses. The Imperial Valley is a highly productive region contributing to an unmet demand for domestic beef and dairy product even if it is not your choice.
I suggest an environmental legal challenge to reduce wasteful overconsumption of Colorado River water by the cattle and water-thirsty feed crop industries in the Imperial Valley. The Salton Sea and surrounding region is increasingly contaminated by toxic agricultural runoff, at times causing catastrophic algae blooms killing fish and migrating birds, and skyrocketing rates of childhood asthma. Phosphorus is the primary cause of toxic algae blooms in waterways. And manure contains high concentrations of phosphorous. So, why are public authorities permitting Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to be sited near the landlocked Salton Sea? For example, near Calipatria and less than a mile from the Sea is a CAFO operated by the Brandt Cattle company. It’s adjacent to the Alamo River flowing into the Sea. The company is obviously concerned to prevent public awareness, even posting a sign prohibiting photography on the public road (Brandt Road) running through the CAFO.
Text copied from the sign:
BRANDT
COMPANY, INC.
NO UNAUTHORIZED
PHOTOGRAPHY OR VIDEO
VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED
PRIVATE PROPERTY
• NO TRESPASSING
• ALL VISITORS MUST CHECK IN AT OFFICE
THESE PREMISES ARE UNDER VIDEO SURVEILLANCE
Dont "like" the info, I agree this kind of information on these CAFOs really needs to be put in front of the public "eye"! The damage they do to the environment - air - water - EVERYTHING! Possibly a public relations surge of this information?
This is another issue that belongs to the livestock lobby & it's helpers (politicians).
Appreciate this information.
One solution to the Colorado River water crisis is for the Upper and Lower Basin States to start charging per acre-foot of water use instead of giving the water away for free. All the prior-appropriation western States own the surface and ground water in their State and authorize water rights to be used by agricultural (always the largest water use) for specified beneficial uses like irrigation of crops for a particular time every year according to the particular water right's historic adjudicated priority.
In Idaho, where I live, the State has the authority to charge water users but chooses not to do so. Idaho also has the highest per capita diversion and use of water in the entire country and a modest annual charge by the State of Idaho of $3 per acre foot of any water right would raise over $60,000,000 per year and easily pay the entire annual budget of the Idaho Department of Water Resources. States could set water pricing in a way to incentivize conservation of water and reduce annual use dramatically through their use of pricing as a market-based solution to slow or end declining surface and ground water. The pricing system could vary according to the type of use and could be designed to minimize use for large but non-essential uses like hay and other forage crops while encouraging water use for human food production and drinking water.
Charging appropriately for water use reflects that water has much higher value than acknowledged by the prior-appropriation system and has always been undervalued in our arid landscapes.
Current negotiations between Upper and Lower Basin States in the Colorado River watershed to solve the ongoing water crisis, should could include encouraging States to start charging users per acre-foot of water use.
Of course water in the west is also a deeply political matter and a pricing change of any kind for vested water rights would bring all the entrenched water buffaloes out to complain about any State approved price for water.
Still the current westwide water crisis should be a catalyst to overcoming those seeking to maintain the clearly failing status quo.
I don't think there is any free water, maybe in the upper basin. IID water is $20/AF plus availability fees and some quality fees, city water is more. And alfalfa eventually produces dairy and meat product which I believe qualify as human foods.
Katie Hobbs has been trying to stop Fondemonte . Having driven over much of the state for work this year and seeing the sprawl coming from every town in Az. I'd say we're going to have to find better solutions, to say the least. You wouldn't believe the size of the chip factories north of Phoenix and the housing that hasn't been built yet. There isn't enough river water now....
https://tucson.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/article_27c324a4-617d-11ee-9187-73629a22bb0f.html
The takeaway is that water rights laws hopelessly over consume, as more water than exists is allocated, and there's no incentive NOT to "use" it. There seems to be zero political will to change the laws, right? Feels hopeless.
The Imperial Irrigation District folks recognize the need to conserve and preserve the water in the prevailing conditions. And they want to preserve their place in line. To that extent, through the years, they have cooperated with their metropolitan neighbors in conservation projects, concrete lining waterways and transferring conserved water to the cities. Individual operations and the district built systems to capture runoff for reuse. In 2024, the district was on track to use just 2.2 million AF of their 3.1 million AF allotment, a near 30% reduction. The ultimate goal of the IID is a 1.6 million AF reduction by 2026. The lower basin states have been the most immediate in implementing conservation measures (Google search).
I must add - the "use the water or lose it" sounds far too much like the post I read today regarding the Pentagon's "using the surplus BILLIONS from this year's appropriations - I guess they would lose that amount of money in next years "windfall". Not sure exactly why the Air Force Chief of Staff requires a $98,000.00 STEINWAY piano? Interesting, right?
I believe this was right about the same time that SNAP benefits were cut!
""Pentagon spent $93B in a single month, including buying a Steinway piano: The Pentagon spent $93 billion in September 2025—the final month of the fiscal year—its highest end-of-year spending surge since 2008, according to an analysis by the government watchdog Open the Books reported on by The New Republic. Much of the spending appeared driven by “use-it-or-lose-it” budget rules that encourage agencies to exhaust remaining funds before the fiscal deadline. The purchases included items not obviously essential for a war effort, such as a $98,329 Steinway grand piano for the Air Force chief of staff’s residence, $5.3 million in Apple devices, millions of dollars in seafood and steak, and $225 million in furniture.""
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/40-killed-tehran-strike-iran-war-very-complete-trump-hegseth-quadcopters-haiti?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2510348&post_id=190514393&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=b9ign&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email