Trump’s Border Wall Could Cause a Severe Water Crisis, Study Warns

By: Karina Martín - Feb 27, 2017, 2:47 pm
The management of the Colorado River is a clear and pressing issue, officials said, which could be effected by Trump’s border wall. (tiempo)

EspañolOne study has found that US President Donald Trump‘s border wall with Mexico could affect the water supply in western regions of the country.

The Center for American Progress warned that the controversial border wall with Mexico could interfere with the Colorado River in a way that impedes on important water needs.

“The management of the Colorado River is a clear and pressing issue,” CAP said. “The urgent need for greater water security in the basin should not be overlooked.”

CAP officials said the pursuit of a border wall would further complicate issues related to access to water. The US-Mexico border has communities that are in close proximity to each other, according to author of the study Ryan Richards.

“A rupture in relations between the United States and Mexico could jeopardize treaties,” he said, “put more strain on water supplies and detonate scarce conditions with a devastating impact on jobs and the economy.”


The US region that could be effected extends to nearly 500 thousand acres and 35 million people, all of whom depend on the Colorado River for drinking water.

Barack Obama’s administration announced the so-called “Minute 319” in 2012 for Mexico to maintain its part of the water supply originating in Lake Mead, and by 2014 it released in an eight-week flow that allowed water to reach the river delta for the first time in years.

Relations between the two countries are not the same as they were under Obama, and Minute 319 expires at the end of this year. Trump is reportedly under pressure to ensure that the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) continues negotiations under a bilateral treaty.

Sources: El Economista; Sputnik.

Karina Martín Karina Martín

Karina Martín is a Venezuelan reporter with the PanAm Post based in Valencia. She holds a bachelor's degree in Modern Languages from the Arturo Michelena University.

Russia: The Hypocrisy of the American Left’s New “Red Scare”

By: David Unsworth - @LatinAmerUpdate - Feb 27, 2017, 2:29 pm
Putin Binoculars

Every American should be outraged by Russian interference in the US presidential election. You remember on November 8 how KGB sleeper cells activated in strategic Rust Belt states went door to door forcing blue collar Reagan Democrats at gunpoint to vote for Donald Trump when they had originally planned to vote for Hillary? It is the gravest affront we've ever faced to the integrity of our democracy. The American Left has reached the boiling point with its new red scare: Vladimir Putin's diabolical machinations which tipped the presidency to Trump, as Russian intelligence "hacked" the election. There is just one problem. There is no credible evidence that Russia swung the election in any way, shape, or form. Read More: US vs. Russia: Trump the Pragmatist vs. Clinton the Warmonger Read More: Trump and Putin Status: "In a Relationship" Let's begin with the en vogue terminology: "hacked." One would be led to believe that Russian intelligence was able to infiltrate our election system and change vote tallies in key states. There is absolutely no evidence that Russia, Putin, or its agents, changed a single vote in the United States. Yet, the American Left continues to flirt with the possibility, suggesting that Donald Trump is not the legitimate 45th president of the United States. Georgia Congressman John Lewis went so far as to allege that Trump was not really the president: "I don't see this President-elect as a legitimate president...I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton." Reality check: Donald Trump won the presidential election fair and square. If the American Left would like to search for a bogeyman, perhaps they should start with the mainstream media, which despite barely veiling their contempt for the brash businessman, gave him tens of millions of dollars worth of free media coverage, and an unprecedented level of exposure for perhaps any candidate in modern American political history. Perhaps they should be blaming Hillary Clinton who ran one of the most lackluster campaigns in recent memory, blew a sizable lead, mismanaged Benghazi, took in hundreds of millions from shadowy foreign governments, and misled the American public over her emails. The alleged "hacking of the election" really involves a trove of DNC emails which were released by wikileaks. Julian Assange, once the darling of the left, has claimed in an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity, that Russian intelligence was not the source of the compromised emails. Obviously we can not accept his assertions as gospel truth without proof, and Assange is unlikely to ever name his source, for this information or any other. As a result of the "hack" the DNC (which is not part of the US government), has been caught with egg on their face. The hacked emails conclusively prove a coordinated strategy by the body (which is supposed to remain neutral) to work to boost the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders. In fact, in one exchange, plans were specifically prepared to paint him in the American press as an atheist and a Communist. But the icing on the cake was the revelation that interim DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile had used her position at CNN to feed questions ahead of time to the Clinton campaign during the primary season. In an unfathomably questionable move, the DNC decided to let Brazile stay on as chairwoman despite outrageous ethical lapses. The hypocrisy of the American Left regarding Russian interference is palpable. The idea that we should be outraged over mere contact between Trump and the Russian government in the period leading up to the election, is laughable. Here is President Barack Obama on the topic speaking to then Russian president Dmitry Medvedev: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space. . . . This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” It is even more laughable to think that the American government has any moral superiority to criticize Russian interference in elections: As the Ron Paul Institute has noted, the US government, in fact, pioneered meddling in foreign elections. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper solemnly testified to Congress, presenting a dire view of the grave threat posed by the Evil Empire to our nation. The very integrity of our democracy is at stake! The evidence? He, in particular, singled out Russian-funded news channel RT: “Of course RT…was very, very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system.” You are kidding me. A news channel was promoting a particular point of view? "Disparaging" our system? Outrageous! Unprecedented! Fascist! Interference! Meddling! Trump cheated! New elections now! You are telling me that a foreign government expressed a particular point of view on their state-funded television channel which is broadcast into many homes (but very rarely watched) in the United States? You are telling me that RT violated the solemn code of journalistic objectivity and neutrality which American journalists hold so near and dear? You are telling me that the Trump campaign had the audacity to CONTACT the Russian government before the elections...a nation that harasses participants in gay pride parades? googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1459522593195-0'); }); It is rather curious how selective the American Left is when it comes to foreign overseas military adventurism. They rightly noted that the Iraq War was going to be a colossal failure and lead to massive destabilization in the Middle East. But they somehow seem to have little problem with a massive and unnecessary NATO military buildup in Eastern Europe that could lead to war. The American Left and the mainstream media will criticize Trump no matter what he does. In recent SNL skits we have been treated to the spectacle of a pompous, arrogant, and bellicose Alec Baldwin calling up foreign leaders and demanding that they "prepare for war" over the most flimsy of pretexts. This is fundamentally inaccurate. Donald Trump is actually less likely than Hillary Clinton to involve the United States in military action. Nowhere is this more apparent than the current relationship we face between NATO, Russia, and the United States. It would be foolish for any conservative or libertarian, or anyone for that matter, to suggest that Vladimir Putin is some wonderful leader presiding over a new dawn of democracy, capitalism, and human rights in Russia. But it would be even more preposterous to suggest that a massive NATO/US military buildup in Eastern Europe is some golden panacea. It also seems eminently reasonable to question why United States taxpayers should be paying to defend the relatively prosperous and stable democracies of Eastern Europe. Donald Trump is absolutely right when he calls into question the great costs imposed upon the US taxpayer of funding a global empire with military installations spread throughout the world, mainly to defend the interests of other nations, rather than our own. Trump should be praised by the American Left for seeking to dialogue with Russia and defuse tensions, rather than recklessly steer us towards military buildup and war. Say what you will about Putin, but he is neither a Communist nor a religious fanatic. Putin is at least open to reason, and in consideration of the current geopolitical state of affairs, Russia is not our enemy. Putin, Trump, and NATO should be working together to face the real global threats in today's world: radical Islamic terrorism and Communism. Military spending, buildup, and confrontation between the US/NATO and Russia is fundamentally inimical to the interests of the people of the United States, Europe, and Russia. So when the American Left talks about hacked DNC emails, or biased RT reporting (on a channel that has little viewership in the US), or dirty, sordid "contacts" between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, remember to view them for what they are: Liberal sore losers who lost a free and fair democratic election, and would rather blame Russia than Hillary Clinton. If they are truly progressives who care about the future of this country, perhaps rather than pushing a military buildup with Russia, they should be encouraging Trump to defuse tensions with Russia, and reallocate these public funds for domestic use: infrastructure, transportation, healthcare, and education.  

Weekly E-Newsletter

Get the latest from PanAm Post direct to your inbox!

We will never share your email with anyone.