Amid Massive Drought, Arizona Lawmaker Calls Out Saudi 'Theft' Of State's Water

Congressman Ruben Gallego says Arizona's water and crops 'belong in Arizona, not Saudi Arabia'

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.

The bill, titled the Domestic Water Protection Act of 2023, was introduced by Ruben Gallego, a Democrat who in a press release announcing the measure directly called out Saudi Arabia.

"Arizona's water and crops belong in Arizona, not Saudi Arabia," Gallego said in his statement. "No longer should foreign governments and companies be given sweetheart deals that leave Arizonans worse off.

"I'm proud to lead the Domestic Water Protection Act to stop these entities from stealing our state's water."

Arizona has been leasing farmland 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.

There is no firm data on exactly how much water the company uses, but a State Land Department report states that Fondomonte is estimated to be using as much as 18,000 acre-feet (22 million cubic metres) each year, which is enough water to supply 54,000 single-family homes.

The estimated cost of that much water is between three to four million dollars a year.

In one area, the Butler Valley in Arizona, Fondomonte pays only $25 per acre for the water that it uses, which is one-sixth of the market price for the land, Middle East Eye reported in November, citing a realtor in the area.

In addition to Saudi Arabia's Fondomonte, the United Arab Emirates company al-Dahra grows 30,000 acres (12,000 hectares) of alfalfa, garlic and onion in Arizona and California, according to the company's website.

The exporting of "virtual water" - water embedded in products such as produce and crops - also has a huge environmental impact on the local communities.

And as Saudi and Emirati companies continue to pump out water from aquifers, scientists worry that they are pumping at such a rate that they will not be able to be replenished. Amid the massive drought the region is facing, with dwindling surface water supplies, these aquifers are the area's last option for water.

A 2020 Arizona Department of Water Resources report found that groundwater levels in the Willcox basin in southeastern Arizona dropped roughly 2.5 metres a year in some areas from 2008 to 2018. A 2018 report estimated that at least roughly 221.8 billion litres were drawn out of the aquifer each year from 1995 to 2015.

"As our communities in Arizona feel the intense effects of the climate crisis and prolonged drought, we are simultaneously being stripped by Saudi-owned companies of our most precious resource - our water," Raul Grijalva, a cosponsor of the legislation, said in a press release.

Recently, leaders in the state of Arizona have signalled their intentions to end the lease with Fondomonte, which would effectively stop the company from pumping more groundwater.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-lawmaker-introduces-bill-rein-saudi-water-usage-arizona

NIH-funded research collaborative redacts emails on why it disavowed 'gold standard' mask study

Former Senate investigator turned independent journalist questions the redactions in records he received.

As public and private institutions resume or consider mask mandates in the wake of a small uptick in COVID-19 hospitalizations and new viral variants, an international research collaborative funded by the National Institutes of Health is facing new scrutiny for how it came to publicly downplay its 17 years of research finding that masks make "little to no difference."

U.K-based nonprofit Cochrane, often described as the "gold standard" of evidence-based medicine, heavily redacted its internal discussions on how to respond to questions about alleged conflicts of interest that may have shaped its March statement deeming the systematic review's results "inconclusive" without changing its content.

It turned over largely unreadable documents to former Senate Finance Committee investigator Paul Thacker, now an independent journalist, in response to his request for the "personal data" Cochrane holds on Thacker under Article 15 of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation.

The State Department did roughly the same in a Freedom of Information Act production in August, prompted by litigation. It heavily redacted discussions of how to respond to reporters asking about its funding of a group that tries to starve conservative publishers of ad revenue.

"They have no justification" for the redactions, Thacker told Just the News, asking rhetorically why Congress wasn't scrutinizing a taxpayer-funded organization whose mask research — or perception thereof — has played a pivotal role in U.S. policy. Cochrane says it has received £500K to 1 million from NIH.

Cochrane spokesperson Harry Dayantis said it was "usually illegal" to disclose information "about individuals other than the requester" under this "very specific and limited type of request," pointing Just the News to the U.K. Information Commissioner's office.

The Cochrane systematic review, which has evaluated masking first against influenza and then COVID since 2006, posed a problem for the federal government’s ongoing pro-mask guidance, but so does an increasing body of research that questions whether sustained mask use is benign.

Then-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told Congress the Cochrane study was suspect because it relied on randomized controlled trials rather than the observational evidence the CDC favors, but she also inaccurately claimed Cochrane had "retracted" it. The House Appropriations Committee later fixed the hearing record at the authors' request.

Cochrane editor-in-chief Karla Soares-Weiser released the March statement following critical questions about the study by New York Times columnist Zeynep Tufekci, a Princeton sociologist.

The top-down reinterpretation prompted recriminations from the study's authors including University of Oxford epidemiologist Tom Jefferson, who has led the oft-updated systematic review from the start and was singled out in Tufekci's column, titled "Here’s Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work."

Soares-Weiser has since taken to communicating with the authors through a consulting firm, Thacker wrote Monday, saying both entities have ignored his questions about the contract.

Jefferson didn't respond to texts and emails Wednesday seeking the Envoy emails. Envoy didn't answer emails seeking confirmation of the contract with Cochrane or its purpose, amount and duration, and Dayantis said he didn't know anything about Envoy.

https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/nih-funded-research-collaborative-hides-emails-why-it-disavowed-gold

American Companies That Are No Longer American

1. Popsicle

Original Headquarters: Oakland, California

Purchased By: Unilever

Country: England

Popsicle has such an interesting history that it’s almost Hollywood. The recipe was created by 11-year-old Oakland native Francis Epperson when he accidentally left a drink outside overnight with a stick in it. When he returned to it the next day, it was a popsicle. As an adult, he released the product to the world and it was an instant hit.

1. Ben & Jerry’s

Original Headquarters: South Burlington, Vermont

Purchased By: Unilever

Country: England

Ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s has made a name for itself as a pop-culture staple. The brand is mentioned in countless movies and TV shows as one of America’s most-beloved foods. The origin story is sweet too, with best friends Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield opening their own parlor in 1978.

1. Burger King

Original Headquarters: Miami, Florida

Purchased By: Restaurant Brands International

Country: Canada

Fast food has long since been an institution in the United States, with many names, including Burger King, making a huge amount of profit. James McLamore and David Egerton first opened their store called “Insta Burger King” in Miami back in 1954. Little did they know they were creating an international brand.

1. Trader Joe’s

Original Headquarters: Monrovia, California

Purchased By: Theo Albrecht

Country: Germany

Competition in the convenience store sector has always been fierce, especially if it’s located in a heavily populated area. Back in 1967, Joe Coulombe started stocking unusual and hard to come by foods to try and entice customers into shopping with him instead of at 7-Eleven. It worked.

1. American Apparel

Original Headquarters: Los Angeles, California

Purchased By: Gildan Activewear

Country: Canada

One of the most appealing aspects of clothing retailer American Apparel for consumers was its slogan, “Made in USA – Sweatshop free.” For the conscientious shopper, this was a brilliant brand. Everything went swimmingly for the company up until 2015, when it went bust and scrambled to get back on its feet.

https://za.investing.com/magazine/american-companies-that-are-no-longer-american/

Woman who appeared on Channel 7 faces child rape, torture charges

A woman who appeared on a Channel 7 TV show is accused of several counts of child rape, indecent treatment of children and torture.

A woman who featured on a Channel 7 show has been charged with a string of serious child abuse offences which allegedly spanned more than a decade.

The woman, who legally must remain anonymous, is facing several charges involving offences allegedly committed in multiple parts of Queensland, the Courier Mail reports.

According to the newspaper, Channel 7 has refused to confirm whether it will scrap the show that features the woman.

The alleged offences date between 2005 and 2020.

They include multiple counts of indecent treatment of children aged under 16 as well as multiple counts of rape, sexual assault, torture and assaults. One charge reads: “indecent film”.

The woman’s partner has also reportedly been accused of several assaults.

The Courier Mail claims it made several attempts to contact Channel 7 for a response about whether it will axe or alter the show and how long it has known about the allegations.

It said it received no response and Channel 7 later aired details of the allegations while omitting the fact the woman and her partner were featured on the channel.

When the outlet asked Channel 7 more questions the following day, it reportedly responded only with letters detailing Queensland laws.

The woman and man were granted bail and are due to face Richlands Magistrates Court in September and October respectively.

When contacted by news.com.au, a Seven spokesman said they could not “make any comment on the matter” for legal reasons.

https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/crime/woman-who-appeared-on-channel-7-faces-child-rape-torture-charges/news-story/d4339f7ffb201f3bd573ce5a0461bfa1