We are currently sending 1,500,000 acres feet of water to Mexico annually. Let’s start charging them $1 million per acre foot until they stop the immigration marches and accept US “return to Mexico” policies.
2 Likes
And then what happens when Canada starts doing the same thing to rivers that drain into the U.S.? Shall we pass that cost on to the river tariff revenue accounts regarding Mexican drainage? Sounds like we need an entire government department to make sure this is ‘managed’ properly. Just sayin’. 
1 Like
Without the US Canada doesn’t exist, everything they fabricate is sold in this country. They don’t have enough population to support their own economy. Should Canada ever suggest that they’re going to do the same thing to us? They will be cutting off their own head. They have no leverage on the United States of America whatsoever, if you’re trying to compare economy to Mexico economy and the access to the South American trail that’s now invading our country. I don’t think you have thought things through. Do you United States is a superpower. Canada has no power over us at all. Should they ever tell us that they’re going to stop or charge us for the river water , they’re economy would be in shambles because the tariffs on all products into the United States would be so high it would bankrupt the entire nation. But thank you for your comment and allowing me to respond.
I think there was something major lost here… the point is the government - any government, doesn’t need to be hoarding and charging for a feature of nature that doesn’t conform to humanities issues surrounding borders and money.
1 Like
Oh, so harvesting diamonds in Africa and Australia is a natural resource. Do you think they will just let you breach their border to take that nature gift that revolves around money? And the premise that it’s OK to just continue having undocumented illegal crossing into the United States without any knowledge of where they’re going what they’re doing and when we will ever see them again in our soil, you just fine with that without balancing negotiation and leverage? By the way, you do know that Mexico jump raw sewage just 100 feet from our San Diego border and raw ends up on our beaches. Are you for or against that destruction of our US natural resources BY Mexico? Just curious. Yes, the world is full of tough decisions and issues and sometimes we have to make them and right now is one of them because 20 million illegals inside. Our border is out of the question…
It dawned on me Angie, even though I didnt mention it. My focus was on how that might boomarang back on costing us more in residual effects. What caught me first was that “we were sending that water” down to Mexico instead of God doing it long before we showed up.
Simple fact is, we didnt lift a finger to make the water, but we will claim the water as our resource to tax for downstream usage. If everyone did that, then water would hardly flow anywhere. The whole idea reminded me of the first settling of the west in dryer counties, where ranchers upstream started water wars by damming up rivers to hoard the water on their ranch, at the detriment of the downstream ranch. Those moves never ended well historically, and I wouldnt think this would either. I can’t see Mexico not responding negatively to it, exercising some sort of newly invented reverse cost of equal magnitude – and I wouldn’t blame them one bit. If I was Mexico, I would get real inventive, real quick, if it was done to me. The whole concept is not neighborly, unAmerican, immoral, and a down right ignorant stunt that invites immediate blowback – my take on it.
Perhaps we should let the water that we dont use, do what it always did before we got here, instead of trying to find ways to rake free profits in from what we didnt use or make in the first place? That is not a clever way to raise a few bucks – that’s just plain ole: pissin’ off yer neighbors for no dad-blame good reason. Perhaps it might sound overly simple…but maybe it is simply supposed to be that simple. 
1 Like
I 100% agree completely 
Only a few concerns I have with this suggestion:
1.) Most Tariffs are used on imports, not exports. While it is possible to impose a tariff on exported goods, it would also encourage other countries to impose similar tariffs on goods they export to us. Ultimately the price falls on everyday consumers.
2.) Hard to tax a natural resource that is available worldwide, unless we are the ones moving the resource without natural movement from the planet itself.
3.) With Mexico being a tropical country for the most part, they seem to have more available freshwater overall, with the large exception being northern mexico as a result of a desert climate.
an unfortunate side effect of " wanting to claim every bit of funds" would be an unrealistic possibility; including holding back water, or redirecting water flow. Both of these would be expensive for the everyday American, and would ultimately cost more to implement than letting water flow naturally.
Stephen, also good points you added. And you are definitely preaching to the choir, since we are both in agreement, spotting the numerous negative ramifications of Mr. Castro’s suggestion for taxing and controlling water that naturally flows into Mexico. 
I understand what you mean. Destruction of natural resources, and a concern for the border against convicted criminals or those engaging in criminal behavior within the borders. The question really going forward is: how to pay for any policy implemented? Any retaliatory fee we may impose on another country may be returned onto us( or may be ignored by the other country altogether) therefore negating any true method of effectiveness.
Now, if we collectively pooled funds together as citizens for a common cause, it could help each of us make a difference nominally as individuals, but have a greater impact as a group. I preface by stating things we could do to limit influence within our country by other countries:
- ) Charge a biannual visa fee of operation to any company that nominally or majorly controlled any other company with foreign interests or ownership; companies that fail to comply would be dissolved of operation efficiency and legal right of existence within U.S. Borders.
2.)Upon clear evidence of a source of destruction of resources: charge the country responsible a fee for cleaning the waste out of a natural resource, or relocating the waste from where it was disposed of past its natural and legal boundary.