Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

South Texas farmers are in peril as the Rio Grande Valley runs dry — again

News Feed
Thursday, April 18, 2024

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. MERCEDES — Across the street from a red barn, a 40-acre field once covered by a sea of green sugar cane leaves now sits dry and thirsty. Irrigation water is dangerously elusive for the fields of the Rio Grande Valley. Mike England, who owns England Farms and Cattle Company located 29 miles east of McAllen, raises cattle and has grown several types of crops including cotton, corn and — until recently — sugar cane. Earlier this year, the state’s last sugar mill closed due to a lack of water — effectively ending the decades-old industry. In recent years, the mill yielded 160,000 tons of raw sugar and 60,000 tons of molasses, according to the sugar mill. It also employed about 500 workers in a normal production year. England had no choice but to destroy the 500 acres worth of sugar cane he'd grown. "And now that I don't have any water, what am I going to plant there?" England said. Several factors contribute to the Valley’s water scarcity, including a lack of rainfall and Mexico’s slow delivery of water to the United States under the terms of a 1944 treaty. Levels at the Amistad International and Falcon International reservoirs are dire. And the Rio Grande Basin reached record low levels last fall and has not improved, according to a report from the National Weather Service in Brownsville. Aerial view of farmer and rancher Mike England's land near Mercedes on April 18. Credit: Ben Lowy for The Texas Tribune England lobbied Hidalgo County officials to issue a disaster declaration in hopes of raising awareness on farmers' plight at the state and national level. He's been successful. On Tuesday, Hidalgo County commissioners extended a disaster declaration issued by the county’s highest-elected official, Judge Richard F. Cortez, citing "exceptional drought conditions." The declaration does not impose water restrictions. Those decisions are left up to individual water systems. Cities in South Texas are putting those into place already, ahead of the summer’s hottest days. McAllen, the largest city in Hidalgo County with more than 144,000 residents, is currently under Stage 2 of their Water Conservation and Drought Contingency Plan, which is triggered when water supply from Amistad and Falcon Dam are below 25%. Levels are currently at 22%, according to Mark Vega, general manager of the McAllen Public Utility. The Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers’ sugar mill in Santa Rosa. Two years of drought and a dwindling water supply forced Texas’ last sugar mill to close after more than 50 years of operation. Credit: Eli Hartman/The Texas Tribune At Stage 2, the city limits the use of water sprinkling systems for residences and businesses. It also limits water for washing vehicles with exceptions for commercial car washes, and restricts the refilling or adding of water to swimming pools. Just east of Hidalgo County, Cameron County Judge Eddie Treviño, Jr., also issued a disaster declaration on Monday. Also in place is Gov. Greg Abbott’s own disaster proclamation stemming from the 2022 drought — the worst in a decade. It applies to dozens of counties including Hidalgo and Cameron counties, authorizing the use of all state resources to reasonably cope with the disaster. Abbott renewed the declaration this month. Brian Jones, a state director for the Texas Farm Bureau and a fourth generation farmer, met with U.S. State Department officials this week to stress the need to pressure Mexico into releasing more water. Under terms of the 1944 treaty, Mexico is required to deliver water to the U.S. from six tributaries that feed into the Rio Grande. In exchange, the U.S. delivers water from the Colorado River to Mexico. Related Story April 12, 2024 The treaty requires the Mexican government to release 1,750,000 acre-feet of water every five years for an average annual amount of 350,000 acre-feet. The current five-year cycle doesn't end until October 2025, so while Mexico hasn't yet violated the terms of the treaty, it is behind on its water deliveries by more than 700,000 acre-feet as of April 6, according to International Boundary & Water Commission, the agency tasked with overseeing the water and boundary treaties. Mexican officials cite their own drought conditions for their inability to deliver water to the U.S. The treaty provides for some flexibility depending on the severity of the drought. But Frank Fisher, public affairs chief for the commission, said there are political factors there that are complicating the situation. Still, he insists the commission is continuing to engage with their Mexican counterparts at the Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas Entre México y Estados Unidos. He adds the state department is actively trying to resolve the issue diplomatically, including negotiating a new addition to the treaty which would amend how Mexico would meet its water obligations. "We can't give up, it's too crucial for folks of South Texas,” Fisher said. Mexican officials echoed Fisher. Manuel Morales, secretario de la Sección Mexicana for CILA, was adamant that Mexico's intention has always been to comply with its obligations under the treaty. In his 38 years of planting, Jones said 2024 is his first without irrigation water, which affects row crops such as sorghum, cotton and corn as well as specialty crops such as vegetables and citrus. Jones warns they're all on the verge of meeting the same fate as the sugar cane industry. "Right now, we do have a delay in water deliveries, that's the reality this current cycle, but our intention is to mitigate that deficit as much as possible," Morales said. "We want to continue complying with the treaty." Jones believes the citrus industry could fall next given that the industry consists of permanent trees that need additional water to produce a crop on top of the water they need to stay alive. Overall, the Valley stands to lose $495.8 million this year in total crop production, according to a December report from Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. Jones is already feeling those losses –– he only planted half his farm this year. He's had to cut employees entirely and cut back the hours of others. England has resorted to the same measures. "It kills me because these guys are some of the best people I've ever known," England said. "One of them has worked for me for 40-some-odd years. We were just past teenagers when he started here. You think I liked laying him off?" While both farmers hope the state department leans on Mexico to fulfill its water obligations, Jones doesn't believe Mexican officials have any intention of releasing water any time soon. "They're keeping it, they're using it," Jones said. "They're growing products that are competing with our products." Jones, echoing a familiar and drastic refrain, said it would take a hurricane or other major tropical event for them to make up their large deficit by October 2025. "Waiting on the weather is not a great plan, but actually waiting on the weather seems like a better plan than waiting on Mexico," Jones said. Hidalgo County is waiting for neither the weather nor Mexico. In March, the county hired H2O Partners, an Austin-based environmental consulting firm, to help develop a countywide plan to address projected water shortages. As part of that strategy, Cortez, the county judge, requested records from the IBWC and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for data on inflows to the Rio Grande. Water marks are seen on the dam gates and concrete at the Falcon Dam in Starr County on Aug. 18, 2022. The reservoir levels are below 25%, triggering some local water restrictions. Credit: Michael Gonzalez for The Texas Tribune Cortez said the county’s analysis suggests that Mexico’s noncompliance with the treaty doesn’t account for all the missing water and believes that the flows from the U.S. side had also dropped. "There could be nothing wrong with it, there could be more demand north from us that are using it more than others," Cortez said. "If that's the case, then that's what it is, but if I don't ask the questions, I don't know the answers." The county’s disaster declaration would enable the county to access state funding if it suffered damages from wildfires such as the historic wildfires that scorched the Texas Panhandle in February and March. Cortez added that affected farmers in the county would be in a position to receive financial relief in the likely scenario of financial losses from the water shortage. The declaration would allow farmers such as Jones and England to apply for loans at a lower interest rate. But without more water, that type of financial assistance won't solve their issues. "Without water, what are we using to grow our crops? What are we able to pay back those loans with?" Jones said. This year, England did what little he could on a few acres of land –– planting hay on land that still had a bit of moisture and planting cotton on their best sandy land. "I just took a chance on a few acres of planting," England said. "But we're in desperate need of a rain right now or it's not going to make anything." Mike England walks across one of the fields on his farm near Mercedes on April 18. Credit: Ben Lowy for The Texas Tribune Reporting in the Rio Grande Valley is supported in part by the Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas. Disclosure: Texas A&M AgriLife and Texas Farm Bureau have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Tickets are on sale now for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival, happening in downtown Austin Sept. 5-7. Get your TribFest tickets before May 1 and save big!

With the hottest days still ahead, local leaders have declared emergencies. And farmers are lobbying for the U.S. government to pressure Mexico to release water.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.


MERCEDES — Across the street from a red barn, a 40-acre field once covered by a sea of green sugar cane leaves now sits dry and thirsty.

Irrigation water is dangerously elusive for the fields of the Rio Grande Valley. Mike England, who owns England Farms and Cattle Company located 29 miles east of McAllen, raises cattle and has grown several types of crops including cotton, corn and — until recently — sugar cane.

Earlier this year, the state’s last sugar mill closed due to a lack of water — effectively ending the decades-old industry. In recent years, the mill yielded 160,000 tons of raw sugar and 60,000 tons of molasses, according to the sugar mill. It also employed about 500 workers in a normal production year.

England had no choice but to destroy the 500 acres worth of sugar cane he'd grown.

"And now that I don't have any water, what am I going to plant there?" England said.

Several factors contribute to the Valley’s water scarcity, including a lack of rainfall and Mexico’s slow delivery of water to the United States under the terms of a 1944 treaty. Levels at the Amistad International and Falcon International reservoirs are dire. And the Rio Grande Basin reached record low levels last fall and has not improved, according to a report from the National Weather Service in Brownsville.

Aerial view of farmer and rancher Mike England's land near Mercedes on April 18. Credit: Ben Lowy for The Texas Tribune

England lobbied Hidalgo County officials to issue a disaster declaration in hopes of raising awareness on farmers' plight at the state and national level.

He's been successful. On Tuesday, Hidalgo County commissioners extended a disaster declaration issued by the county’s highest-elected official, Judge Richard F. Cortez, citing "exceptional drought conditions."

The declaration does not impose water restrictions. Those decisions are left up to individual water systems. Cities in South Texas are putting those into place already, ahead of the summer’s hottest days.

McAllen, the largest city in Hidalgo County with more than 144,000 residents, is currently under Stage 2 of their Water Conservation and Drought Contingency Plan, which is triggered when water supply from Amistad and Falcon Dam are below 25%. Levels are currently at 22%, according to Mark Vega, general manager of the McAllen Public Utility.

The Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers’ sugar mill in Santa Rosa. Two years of drought and a dwindling water supply forced Texas’ last sugar mill to close after more than 50 years of operation. Credit: Eli Hartman/The Texas Tribune

At Stage 2, the city limits the use of water sprinkling systems for residences and businesses. It also limits water for washing vehicles with exceptions for commercial car washes, and restricts the refilling or adding of water to swimming pools.

Just east of Hidalgo County, Cameron County Judge Eddie Treviño, Jr., also issued a disaster declaration on Monday.

Also in place is Gov. Greg Abbott’s own disaster proclamation stemming from the 2022 drought — the worst in a decade. It applies to dozens of counties including Hidalgo and Cameron counties, authorizing the use of all state resources to reasonably cope with the disaster. Abbott renewed the declaration this month.

Brian Jones, a state director for the Texas Farm Bureau and a fourth generation farmer, met with U.S. State Department officials this week to stress the need to pressure Mexico into releasing more water. Under terms of the 1944 treaty, Mexico is required to deliver water to the U.S. from six tributaries that feed into the Rio Grande. In exchange, the U.S. delivers water from the Colorado River to Mexico.

Related Story

The treaty requires the Mexican government to release 1,750,000 acre-feet of water every five years for an average annual amount of 350,000 acre-feet. The current five-year cycle doesn't end until October 2025, so while Mexico hasn't yet violated the terms of the treaty, it is behind on its water deliveries by more than 700,000 acre-feet as of April 6, according to International Boundary & Water Commission, the agency tasked with overseeing the water and boundary treaties.

Mexican officials cite their own drought conditions for their inability to deliver water to the U.S. The treaty provides for some flexibility depending on the severity of the drought. But Frank Fisher, public affairs chief for the commission, said there are political factors there that are complicating the situation.

Still, he insists the commission is continuing to engage with their Mexican counterparts at the Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas Entre México y Estados Unidos. He adds the state department is actively trying to resolve the issue diplomatically, including negotiating a new addition to the treaty which would amend how Mexico would meet its water obligations.

"We can't give up, it's too crucial for folks of South Texas,” Fisher said.

Mexican officials echoed Fisher. Manuel Morales, secretario de la Sección Mexicana for CILA, was adamant that Mexico's intention has always been to comply with its obligations under the treaty.

In his 38 years of planting, Jones said 2024 is his first without irrigation water, which affects row crops such as sorghum, cotton and corn as well as specialty crops such as vegetables and citrus. Jones warns they're all on the verge of meeting the same fate as the sugar cane industry.

"Right now, we do have a delay in water deliveries, that's the reality this current cycle, but our intention is to mitigate that deficit as much as possible," Morales said. "We want to continue complying with the treaty."

Jones believes the citrus industry could fall next given that the industry consists of permanent trees that need additional water to produce a crop on top of the water they need to stay alive.

Overall, the Valley stands to lose $495.8 million this year in total crop production, according to a December report from Texas A&M AgriLife Extension.

Jones is already feeling those losses –– he only planted half his farm this year. He's had to cut employees entirely and cut back the hours of others.

England has resorted to the same measures.

"It kills me because these guys are some of the best people I've ever known," England said. "One of them has worked for me for 40-some-odd years. We were just past teenagers when he started here. You think I liked laying him off?"

While both farmers hope the state department leans on Mexico to fulfill its water obligations, Jones doesn't believe Mexican officials have any intention of releasing water any time soon.

"They're keeping it, they're using it," Jones said. "They're growing products that are competing with our products."

Jones, echoing a familiar and drastic refrain, said it would take a hurricane or other major tropical event for them to make up their large deficit by October 2025.

"Waiting on the weather is not a great plan, but actually waiting on the weather seems like a better plan than waiting on Mexico," Jones said.

Hidalgo County is waiting for neither the weather nor Mexico.

In March, the county hired H2O Partners, an Austin-based environmental consulting firm, to help develop a countywide plan to address projected water shortages.

As part of that strategy, Cortez, the county judge, requested records from the IBWC and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for data on inflows to the Rio Grande.

Water marks are seen on the dam gates and concrete at the Falcon Dam in Starr County on Aug. 18, 2022. The reservoir levels are below 25%, triggering some local water restrictions. Credit: Michael Gonzalez for The Texas Tribune

Cortez said the county’s analysis suggests that Mexico’s noncompliance with the treaty doesn’t account for all the missing water and believes that the flows from the U.S. side had also dropped.

"There could be nothing wrong with it, there could be more demand north from us that are using it more than others," Cortez said. "If that's the case, then that's what it is, but if I don't ask the questions, I don't know the answers."

The county’s disaster declaration would enable the county to access state funding if it suffered damages from wildfires such as the historic wildfires that scorched the Texas Panhandle in February and March.

Cortez added that affected farmers in the county would be in a position to receive financial relief in the likely scenario of financial losses from the water shortage.

The declaration would allow farmers such as Jones and England to apply for loans at a lower interest rate. But without more water, that type of financial assistance won't solve their issues.

"Without water, what are we using to grow our crops? What are we able to pay back those loans with?" Jones said.

This year, England did what little he could on a few acres of land –– planting hay on land that still had a bit of moisture and planting cotton on their best sandy land.

"I just took a chance on a few acres of planting," England said. "But we're in desperate need of a rain right now or it's not going to make anything."

Mike England walks across one of the fields on his farm near Mercedes on April 18. Credit: Ben Lowy for The Texas Tribune

Reporting in the Rio Grande Valley is supported in part by the Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas.

Disclosure: Texas A&M AgriLife and Texas Farm Bureau have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.


Tickets are on sale now for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival, happening in downtown Austin Sept. 5-7. Get your TribFest tickets before May 1 and save big!

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Simpler regulations spearhead UK taskforce plan to get new nuclear reactors built

Panel’s final report outlines planning and environmental changes to get plants built faster and cheaperA government taskforce has finalised its plans to speed up and lower the cost of rolling out a new generation of nuclear reactors by streamlining UK regulation.The nuclear regulatory taskforce was set up by the prime minister, Keir Starmer, in February after the government promised to rip up “archaic rules” and slash regulations to “get Britain building”. Continue reading...

A government taskforce has finalised its plans to speed up and lower the cost of rolling out a new generation of nuclear reactors by streamlining UK regulation.The nuclear regulatory taskforce was set up by the prime minister, Keir Starmer, in February after the government promised to rip up “archaic rules” and slash regulations to “get Britain building”.It published its interim report in August, which led a coalition of 25 civil society groups to warn of the dangers of cutting nuclear safety regulations. It said the proposals lacked “credibility and rigour”.The taskforce was led by John Fingleton, the former head of the Office of Fair Trading. He said of the final report: “Our solutions are radical, but necessary. By simplifying regulation, we can maintain or enhance safety standards while finally delivering nuclear capacity safely, quickly, and affordably.”The recommendations include restructuring the nuclear industry’s regulatory bodies to create a single commission for nuclear regulation, and changing environmental and planning regimes “to enhance nature and deliver projects quicker”.Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, said the new rules would form a crucial part of delivering the changes needed to drive new nuclear “in a safe, affordable way”.The report was welcomed by Tom Greatrex, the chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association. He said the report represented an “unprecedented opportunity to make nuclear regulation more coherent, transparent and efficient” that could make projects “faster and less expensive to deliver”.“Too often, costly and bureaucratic processes have stood in the way of our energy security, the fight against the climate crisis, and protecting the natural environment, to which nuclear is essential,” he added.Sam Richards, the chief executive of pro-nuclear campaign group Britain Remade, said it could mark “a watershed moment for cutting the cost of new nuclear in Britain”.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“The findings of the taskforce lay bare the litany of regulations that make Britain the most expensive place in the world to build nuclear power stations,” Richards said.“At a time when Britain’s electricity bills are among the world’s highest, our regulatory system forced EDF to spend nearly £280,000 per fish protected. This is indefensible. These types of modifications have added years in construction and billions in costs; costs that ultimately get passed on to consumers in higher bills.”Fingleton added: “This is a once in a generation opportunity. The problems are systemic, rooted in unnecessary complexity, and a mindset that favours process over outcome.”

Labor pledges to pass long-awaited nature laws this week as Greens demand more concessions

The government has offered to make changes to the bill to both the Greens and the Liberals hoping to reach a deal on legislation that can pass the SenateGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastYears of debate about environmental law reform have come down to a tense standoff in the final sitting week of federal parliament for the year, with Labor claiming it can do a deal that will pass the Senate by Thursday.The government is still pushing to pass its major changes, despite not yet having reached an agreement with either the Greens or the Coalition. Continue reading...

Years of debate about environmental law reform have come down to a tense standoff in the final sitting week of federal parliament for the year, with Labor claiming it can do a deal that will pass the Senate by Thursday.The government is still pushing to pass its major changes, despite not yet having reached an agreement with either the Greens or the Coalition.The Greens appear to be inching closer to a deal on updating the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, with the Coalition still refusing to back the changes. But the Minerals Council has joined other peak business groups in urging the Liberals and Nationals to back the changes, with environment minister, Murray Watt, pledging to make a deal with whoever will come to the table first.Sign up: AU Breaking News email“We will pass these reforms this week with whichever of the Coalition and the Greens is willing to work with us to deliver that balanced package,” Watt said on Sunday.Greens and Labor sources said they expected the two parties could come to an agreement later in the week, ahead of parliament rising on Thursday afternoon, but the Greens environment spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, wanted more limits on fossil fuel developments before signing up.“We also want to make sure we’re not seeing coal and gas fossil fuel projects accelerated,” she told the ABC’s Insiders.“I think it’s crazy in 2025, you’re talking about a new set of environment laws and it doesn’t even consider the climate pollution that a coal or gas mine makes?”Despite the 1,500 pages of environmental law reform still being examined by a Senate committee, due to report in March 2026, the government says it wants to ram the bill through parliament by year’s end because it would improve approvals and build times for major parts of its agenda including housing construction, critical minerals sites and green energy projects.But the Greens and Coalition say they are not convinced of the bill’s urgency. Despite not ruling out a deal later in the week, Greens sources said they didn’t see the need for rushing, noting the ongoing Senate inquiry, and their concerns that the bill could help fast-track approval of coal and gas projects.Labor, in turn, is pressuring the Greens. Watt held a press conference on Sunday in the Brisbane electorate of Ryan, the last Greens-held seat in the country after the party lost three seats at the May election.“We saw at the last federal election that the Greens party paid a very big political price for being seen by the Australian people to be blocking progress on important things like housing and environmental law reform,” Watt said.“There’s a real opportunity for the Greens this week to demonstrate that they have heard the message from the Australian people, that they’re not going to keep blocking progress, that they’re not going to make the perfect the enemy of the good.”The Liberal party’s finance spokesperson, James Paterson, said on Sunday: “where it stands today, we certainly couldn’t support the proposed legislation.”He claimed the laws were “deficient” and that the opposition would stick to its earlier demands, daring the government to “do a deal with the Greens and they will wear the consequences of that.”skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Breaking News AustraliaGet the most important news as it breaksPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionWatt has offered concessions to both Greens and Coalition demands.To the Coalition, Watt has conceded amendments to tighten rules around the National Environmental Protection Agency’s powers, while for the Greens, Labor has offered limits on the “national interest” test being used to approve fossil fuel projects.On Sunday, Watt extended another olive branch to the Greens, offering to force native forestry projects to comply with national environmental standards within three years. But Hanson-Young wanted more for their support, saying a three-year phase-in was not fast enough.“It’s 2025 and it’s time we ended native forest logging,” she said.Corporate groups like the Business Council of Australia have urged the Coalition to back the EPBC changes. The Minerals Council CEO, Tania Constable, added her voice on Sunday, calling for a “sensible compromise by both sides”.“This will allow our industry to deliver investment, jobs and regional benefits faster,” she said.

Sicily deserves better than the looming prospect of a giant bridge that will never get built | Jamie Mackay

Troubled waters over the world’s longest suspension bridge are no surprise. The Italian government should be funding public servicesA dozen or so times each day, as Italy’s southbound Intercity rail service arrives in the Calabrian town of Villa San Giovanni, the journey comes to a dramatic halt. The train is decoupled from its tracks, carefully loaded on to the deck of a ferry, and secured in place. The entire cargo then eases out into the Strait of Messina en route to Sicily. Invariably, this 25-minute crossing becomes an impromptu community moment. Passengers abandon their carriages, flocking to the ship’s top-deck snack bar to share freshly fried arancini, trade anecdotes, and admire the vista over Mount Etna’s distant peak, before returning to continue their journey by rail.For tourists and itinerant visitors like myself, the ferry crossing is a charming novelty. For local people, however, it has long been a defining part of their identity. In his 1941 novel, Conversations in Sicily, the writer Elio Vittorini describes a group of fruit pickers congregating on the boat’s deck, feasting on large chunks of local cheese and enjoying the view. As the narrator joins them, he is transported to “being a boy; feeling the wind devouring the sea”, while gazing out at “the ruins along the two coasts”, separated, poetically, across the water.Jamie Mackay is a writer and translator based in Florence Continue reading...

A dozen or so times each day, as Italy’s southbound Intercity rail service arrives in the Calabrian town of Villa San Giovanni, the journey comes to a dramatic halt. The train is decoupled from its tracks, carefully loaded on to the deck of a ferry, and secured in place. The entire cargo then eases out into the Strait of Messina en route to Sicily. Invariably, this 25-minute crossing becomes an impromptu community moment. Passengers abandon their carriages, flocking to the ship’s top-deck snack bar to share freshly fried arancini, trade anecdotes, and admire the vista over Mount Etna’s distant peak, before returning to continue their journey by rail.For tourists and itinerant visitors like myself, the ferry crossing is a charming novelty. For local people, however, it has long been a defining part of their identity. In his 1941 novel, Conversations in Sicily, the writer Elio Vittorini describes a group of fruit pickers congregating on the boat’s deck, feasting on large chunks of local cheese and enjoying the view. As the narrator joins them, he is transported to “being a boy; feeling the wind devouring the sea”, while gazing out at “the ruins along the two coasts”, separated, poetically, across the water.Soon, though, this sentimental voyage may become a relic of the past. For the past few months, Italian officials have been in advanced talks to sign off on a new bridge connecting Sicily to the mainland. In August, the Italian government confirmed it will invest €13.5bn and commission the Webuild Group to begin construction. If it is ever built, it will be the longest single-span bridge in the world.The Sicilians I know are sceptical. After all, this is not the first time the Messina Bridge has been mooted, only to be shelved. While plans for the crossing date back to Roman times, the modern saga truly began in the late 1960s, when successive Italian governments championed the project as crucial for tackling regional inequalities. For the original architects, the bridge offered an obvious solution to the glaring infrastructure gap between the industrial north and the agricultural south. By closing that space, they reasoned, Sicily could finally attract the kind of international investment that other parts of Italy had long enjoyed.But the bridge has never materialised. Over the decades, hurdles such as seismic viability, environmental concerns, and the pervasive risk of mafia fraud have repeatedly halted the plans, making it seem impossible. Even a few months ago, when the government announced its “final” approval, my Sicilian friends told me they’d believe it when they saw it. They were right. Last month, Italy’s court of auditors blocked the project due to concerns about the legality of the financing, and at the time of writing, the project is frozen once again.In the meantime, an old public debate is re-emerging, which reveals a lot about Italian politics today. On one side are the pro-bridge advocates, who see the project as key to the future, pointing out that it would provide as many as 120,000 new local jobs per year and improve prospects for growth. On the other side are the protesters, from across the political spectrum, who dismiss pro-bridge advocates as nefarious opportunists concerned only with profit. For them, the bridge is synonymous with the shortsighted exploitation of the island.If you’ve ever been to Messina, you’ll know these vague ideological stances quickly rub up against reality. While the city’s life and culture are as exciting as anywhere on the island, Messina is unfortunately afflicted by some of the worst social problems in Italy. The local municipality is infamous for its financial mismanagement, characterised by mysterious losses of public funds and active criminal and civil court cases ongoing against various politicians, including two former mayors. Organised crime is prevalent, and cases of infrastructure-related fraud are already common among businesses, including those with interests in the Strait. Poverty is a huge problem. The health service is on its knees, and the school system is on the verge of collapse, suffering from some of the worst drop-out rates in the country.This reality makes the rhetoric of political proponents hard to swallow. Recently, Italy’s transport minister, Matteo Salvini, called the bridge “the most important public work in the world”, but he didn’t always feel this way. A decade ago, in fact, he was arguing the exact opposite. In a 2016 TV interview, which is now being widely reshared online in Italy, he judged the bridge unfeasible from an engineering standpoint and argued that regular closures due to the notoriously strong winds would render it useless. Given the state of public services in Sicily, he argued, spending billions on such a project would be a waste of money, and it would be better to dedicate such limited funds to bolstering local services.Ironically, the very arguments Salvini made in 2016 have only gained greater relevance as the effects of the climate crisis intensify. Over my years of taking the ferry, I’ve witnessed first-hand how the annual wildfires are getting worse. I’ve made small talk with local farmers on the ferry’s top-deck bar, watching flames lick the sky, illuminating the charred hillsides. I’ve heard accounts of the fatal spring and summer of 2024, when the province of Messina experienced its worst drought in decades. Crops failed, livestock died. Reservoirs ran empty and aqueducts began to fail. In some areas, tap water failed to arrive for days on end.Webuild presents the Messina Bridge as a historic opportunity. Residents, though, don’t seem to see it that way, and a recent survey indicates 70% are against the project. And you can see why: if you were living in a drought zone, would the prospect of having an estimated 15-20% of your local water supply diverted towards the project really seem like an opportunity? If you lived near the seafront, would you want years of noise, wildlife destruction and pollution, all for the eventual aim of a giant public work that is not guaranteed to benefit you? If you were one of the 4,000 people on either side of the Strait who would be forced to abandon their homes to demolition, would you be ready to pack your bags?skip past newsletter promotionSign up to This is EuropeThe most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environmentPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionSalvini has promised to respond to the court’s concerns and claims the government can still get construction started by February 2026. I, for one, hope he backs down. At a moment when the climate crisis is creating new emergencies and worsening an already dire economic situation, the bridge is simply not a priority. Sicilians are desperately in need of political investment in public services, of leaders who can inspire collective action to ensure government funds are properly spent. Until then, Sicilians remain defiant and continue to enjoy one of the world’s most spectacular ferry crossings: preferring conviviality and arancini to a costly steel panacea.

Data centers meet resistance over environmental concerns as AI boom spreads in Latin America

An expert describes how communities in some of the world’s driest areas are demanding transparency as secretive governments court billions in foreign investmentThis Q&A originally appeared as part of The Guardian’s TechScape newsletter. Sign up for this weekly newsletter here.The data centers that power the artificial intelligence boom are beyond enormous. Their financials, their physical scale, and the amount of information contained within are so massive that the idea of stopping their construction can seem like opposing an avalanche in progress. Continue reading...

This Q&A originally appeared as part of The Guardian’s TechScape newsletter. Sign up for this weekly newsletter here.The data centers that power the artificial intelligence boom are beyond enormous. Their financials, their physical scale, and the amount of information contained within are so massive that the idea of stopping their construction can seem like opposing an avalanche in progress.Despite the scale and momentum of the explosion of data centers, resistance is mounting in the United States, in the United Kingdom, and in Latin America, where data centers have been built in some of the world’s driest areas. Local opposition in all three regions has often focused on the environmental impacts and resource consumption of the gargantuan structures.Paz Peña is a researcher and fellow with the Mozilla Foundation who studies the social and environmental impact of technology, particularly data centers and particularly in Latin America. She spoke to the Guardian at the Mozilla festival in Barcelona about how communities in Latin America are going to court to pry information away from governments and corporations that would much rather keep it secret.The Guardian: Could you describe your research?Paz Peña: Basically, my research is about the positions of governments on data centers and what the promises are behind them. What are the relationships that governments today in Latin America have with big tech? There’s a lot of lobbying activities around infrastructure and data centers from big tech to governments in Latin America.Chile and Brazil are the two top countries working on data centers today in Latin America, and Chile is one of the countries in Latin America that has a lot of resistance against data centers.What the governments are doing – I’m talking about leftwing governments … what they are looking for is foreign investment for data centers in their countries. The amounts are great. It’s a public policy to attract [data centers] with what they call national investment plans. They’re doing tax exemptions, for example, in Brazil, which is a huge controversy back there.In the case of Chile, what they’re doing is actually trying to deregulate the environmental assessments that data centers are going through.Carving out an exception for them?Peña: Exactly. There’s no specific category of environmental impact assessment for data centers in Latin America. In the case of Chile right now, they are assessed on the diesel that they use, because they use diesel generators for energy. It’s huge amounts of diesel.The government actually made an administrative change in the environmental system evaluation, where the threshold that data centers need to achieve on diesel to pass an environmental assessment changed. Magically, that means that data centers are not going through environmental impact assessments in Chile any more, which was the reason why communities understood what were the impacts of data centers. They don’t have that information right now.What we’re seeing is that governments are creating opportunities for investments but not creating rules and regulations for the environmental impacts of data centers, rules about diesel use, energy, and water.Without that information on data centers, do you see that the opposition to them is confused or hobbled because they don’t know what it is they’re opposing? Or does it incite more opposition because of the feeling of not being told what’s really going on?In the case of Chile, I would say that the local activism is quite angry with the leftwing government. The promises of this government was to be an environmental, sustainable exercise of power, right? President [Gabriel] Boric actually said this, that he would form an ecological government. Nobody really believes that. But they put that in the discourse. So you have to pay your words, right?People are really mad. I would say for two reasons. One is that they don’t have the transparency to understand what is going on in their neighborhoods. The second thing is they are super mad about it because the national data center plan, which is, again, a foreign investment plan, is presented for companies – but not necessarily for communities. When they actually publicly presented this plan, which was about two months ago, all the industry was present, but super few people from communities. Communities felt like they were being left out of the conversation.If there’s a data center planned for my neighborhood and I oppose it, what should I do?In a community, you will find people that understand what a data center is and some people will not have an idea of what it is. So when they have heard, they probably heard by two sources: a government’s evaluation system or the media. So once they have heard about this, the main problem they have is, again, transparency. Because corporate secrecy is still super present around the resources that these data centers need – energy, water, et cetera.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe problem that we have seen this in Latin America – there’s an incredible example in Uruguay about this – is that governments actually agree with this corporate secrecy. When a community asks for more information, the government is saying: it’s corporate secrecy. We cannot give you that information. So in general, what we are seeing is that communities are considering going to court to actually ask for that information. Because in Latin America, there is an inter-American agreement called the Escazu agreement, which is an environmental agreement about transparency, saying that a government cannot hide this incredibly important information for people.In the case of Uruguay, they went to court, because there was a Google data center being built in Uruguay in Montevideo, the capital. A couple of years ago, they’re going through an incredible drought where the people in Montevideo had to shower with buckets of water.Meanwhile, the government announced that this Google data center, where the amounts of water needed would be immense. So people were asking if this water, this very scarce resource, should be going to Google or to people. This is a fair question.They didn’t know exactly how much water Google would need. So they asked the government. The government said no. The environmental minister said: no, you cannot have that information because it’s corporate secrecy by Google. So they went to court, and they won, actually. The court quoted the Eskasu agreement.When a community takes a public stance saying we want more information about this and that, and social and environmental impacts, the impression is that they are opposing progress, technological progress, economic progress. Corporations, and I will say, sadly, governments – they see communities as a kind of roadblock.The first thing people need is information, and the first hurdle that they confront is the lack of information. So I would say that the first step they need to take is to find any source of information, and sometimes go to court. The majority of these actions are not successful, but they are sometimes the only way that corporations but also, sadly, governments give the information to the people.If you lose the fight, what should you do then if you’re a member of this community?For some communities in Chile that I interviewed, big tech companies weren’t actually the enemy, which is very interesting. Data center plans were seen as sort of an opportunity to raise the bar of environmental measures, because the people in those communities are surrounded by so many bad corporate actors who pollute a lot and don’t even care. It’s not necessarily a movement against big tech. Not yet, I would say. Maybe later.For now, these communities see a tech company planning a data center as not as a bad actor, actually as a strategic opportunity to raise the bar of environmental care and measures in their own neighborhoods. Big tech companies have this necessity of being the good player in the world, or at least being seen that way, so there is an opportunity for people to say, ‘Big tech has raised the bar of environmental care. So let’s try to put some sort of pressure to the other bad actors.’The enormous amounts of money and the physical scale of these things are so huge. They seem to operate on this inhumanly large level. How do people believe in their own opposition to these projects? They’re so massive that it kind of seems like you’re just saying no to an earthquake.In general, people who are working against data centers are people who have a background working on environmental issues. It’s people really used to the big fight. It’s people that really understand how difficult it is to deal with corporations and with governments.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.