Arkansas orders Chinese company's subsidiary to divest itself of agricultural land

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/arkansas-orders-chinese-companys-subsidiary-divest-agricultural-land-104054205

"LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Arkansas on Tuesday ordered the subsidiary of a Chinese-owned company to divest itself of 160 acres (774,400 square yards) of agricultural land, the first such action under a wave of new laws across the country restricting foreign ownership of farmland.

Attorney General Tim Griffin said Northrup King Seed Co. has two years to divest the property in Craighead County under legislation passed by the majority-Republican Legislature and signed by GOP Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders earlier this year."

 

Probably unconstitutional.

 

That sounds like what the communists did eons ago--forced divestment and confiscation of businesses and land.

 

Rumor has it that they are offering good money to those willing to sell parts of the USA.
There is known gossip about politicians accepting indirectly or directly nice sums of money from ChiComs.

 

"Got to give me SOMETHING. Something I can use.... Dirty Laundry!

 

IIRC, this is happening in Arizona with a Saudi owned company that grows alfalfa (which is supposed to be a water-intense crop) as well to send back to SA. It's because of the water shortages. These foreign companies signed long-term leases for terms that gave them priority for use of the state's water resources. There are even American farmers who have had their access to water restricted in order for the foreign ag companies to use it. It never should have been that way, and it seems like some states now understand the danger and are trying to undo, or mitigate, the harm these agreements have caused.

 

For sure. NY Times Article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/03/climate/arizona-saudi-arabia-alfalfa-groundwater.html#:~:text=The farm, in Butler Valley,is fed to dairy cows.

 

Here in the Inland West, water rights don't actually work that way.

 

I can't access the article again due to paywall. Can you please explain?

 

Not in a DI post I'm afraid. Water law is a legal sub-specialty that I know more about than I care to. There's a ton of money in it but frankly, it's agonizingly boring to actually practice. Think having all four wisdom teeth removed in the course of a single appointment then extend that unpleasantness over several decades.

 

I tried just now to give you a coherent explanation but after four dense paragraphs I gave it up as hopeless.

General rules are too misleading to be useful. I can give you only a conclusion and point you to the nearest law library. No, this stuff isn't all online either.

Interior Western water rights are property rights. The government cannot affect the water right owner's priority of use without paying compensation for that taking.

Water rights can be bought and sold but usually only in connection to specific parcels of land. If a Chinese company, or anyone else, has a senior water right it's because that company bought the land to which the right pertains.

I have rarely seen an accurate explanation of water rights in the general legal press and never in the popular press. If you really want to understand it try searching "doctrine of prior appropriation". Keep in mind that this law applies ONLY to the Interior West. The rest of the country (don't know about Louisiana) has a completely different but equally complex structure called "riparian rights" about which I know nothing.

I hope this helps but I'm afraid it won't.

 

The wiki page is not bad as a place to start but it is just that and no more. Don't base any conclusions on it.

 

That rings a bell. Long ago (nearly 40 years) those, or at least their definition, were included in the Real Estate Licensing course I took. I don't think they were on the exam, though. First time I've seen or heard that term since 1986.

I took the course, not to work in Real Estate, but hoping to be able to buy or sell a house a little smarter. I bought one during the course and things went OK - I think it helped somewhat. Buying was OK - but selling it 8-9 years later, two weeks after I'd finally paid for it in full, not OK. Even at a profit, selling was absolutely the dumbest financial decision of my entire life. I should at least have used the money to buy another one.

 

What it did, for sure, is make me bold enough to try what I thought was a real lowball offer. I'd learned that there was really nothing to lose. Surprise. The owner countered, wanting just $1,000 more. That price was well below my original expectations, so - done deal.

 

Yeah, it probably does ring a bell. Riparian rights comes from soggy old England.