4 ms·

"we found that if everyone in California got rid of their lawn, it would save 5-7% of total water usage in the state." But what part could be saved if agricult

"we found that if everyone in California got rid of their lawn, it would save 5-7% of total water usage in the state." But what part could be saved if agricultural water subsidies were removed? And unlike washing cars, I'm not saying making it illegal - just not encouraging the waste with artificially low prices, below the market prices. We will never know for sure, as all we can have is studies, and estimations. And it would be deemed unfair for those who have invested in agriculture. Who could have known irrigating the desert would be a wasteful endeavor and likely to cause water shortages in the future? EDIT: my main idea was to not make anything illegal, or taking any rights, but let whoever bear the full true costs and let the market sort it out. Industrial and agricultural uses of water are fine in my book - if you pay the price.

rsync 11y ago
"And unlike washing cars, I'm not saying making it illegal" Wait, you're suggesting washing cars should be illegal ?
- jedberg 11y ago
  It already is in parts of California. You can get a $500 for washing your car.
sbov 11y ago
This over simplifies the problem. Water rights are treated a lot like property rights. How is taking water from these people any different than taking someone's land because they obtained it 100 years ago when the region had fewer people?
- vacri 11y ago
  Because water is mobile and needed by humans to survive. If the state runs out of water, people will die. Also, when land is needed for the public's need, there is Eminent Domain, which gets invoked from time to time.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - devereaux 11y ago
    No, people will not die. They will buy bottled water. Is it expensive? Well, maybe living in the middle of a desert should not be subsidized. Anyone who thinks that's too expensive is free to another place. Notice the "free to". Eminent Domain is awful. As I just posted in another thread, I think the best way in general is leaving everyone free - not forcing anyone to do what they don't want to do, as I don't like the concept of force or violence. I don't care about government action as such - if it was optional, as in a "recommendation". As in saying cigarettes are bad. Not in banning or taxing them. Eminent Domain is using the force of the government and the threat of violence against whoever stands in the way. Like people whose homes are in the way of making new private buildings, as seen in many cases. All it takes is giving them enough money to make them leave on their own free will. If they don't want to, or if you're too cheap for that, what makes anyone think you have more "rights" to their property than these people do?? I can't ever agree to that, sorry.
    - gknoy 11y ago
      If they can't afford to buy expensive water (which we need for sewers, showers, washing dishes, etc -- not merely drinking), chances are that they'd have a hard time finding the money to move elsewhere, even if it would be cheaper in the long-term to do so.
    - vacri 11y ago
      How very strange, in that you think that water should not be a resource appropriately managed/subsidised by a government, but you're totally on-board with the concept of private ownership of land - a concept wholly enabled by government. It's only the government's "threat of violence" that allows private ownership of land in the first place. You don't want the government to manage water for the benefit of the population? Why do you want government to manage land, then? Isn't it funny how libertarianism is always so lopsided? "Freedom for everyone, as long as the elites get to keep their status quo!". There's always some flowery rhetoric protecting the power of the elite...
- bsder 11y ago
  > because they obtained it 100 years ago when the region had fewer people? Because most of them didn't obtain it 100 years ago. Most of them obtained it as a subsidized attempted by California to settle the useless Central Valley. At this point, California needs to simply start buying out the agribusinesses and shutting them down. Unfortunately, this will kill the Central Valley. However, as we have seen, so will a lack of water.
- SilasX 11y ago
  David Zetland has outlined a system of "All-in Auctions" that would preserve water property rights while imposing an opportunity cost for using that water, by auctioning water usage and paying the funds to any rights holder to the extent that they forgo water extraction they would otherwise have the right to. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658193 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658193 That is, you can continue to invoke your traditional rights in the water, but you have to forgo cash payments from the new auctions for doing so. This would eliminate the ridiculous system of "use it or lose it" that results in farmers blowing $1 worth of water to produce $0.05 worth of crops.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Water rights are treated a lot like property rights. No, water rights are property rights.

rsync 11y ago

"And unlike washing cars, I'm not saying making it illegal" Wait, you're suggesting washing cars should be illegal ?

jedberg 11y ago
It already is in parts of California. You can get a $500 for washing your car.

sbov 11y ago

This over simplifies the problem. Water rights are treated a lot like property rights. How is taking water from these people any different than taking someone's land because they obtained it 100 years ago when the region had fewer people?

vacri 11y ago
Because water is mobile and needed by humans to survive. If the state runs out of water, people will die. Also, when land is needed for the public's need, there is Eminent Domain, which gets invoked from time to time.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- devereaux 11y ago
  No, people will not die. They will buy bottled water. Is it expensive? Well, maybe living in the middle of a desert should not be subsidized. Anyone who thinks that's too expensive is free to another place. Notice the "free to". Eminent Domain is awful. As I just posted in another thread, I think the best way in general is leaving everyone free - not forcing anyone to do what they don't want to do, as I don't like the concept of force or violence. I don't care about government action as such - if it was optional, as in a "recommendation". As in saying cigarettes are bad. Not in banning or taxing them. Eminent Domain is using the force of the government and the threat of violence against whoever stands in the way. Like people whose homes are in the way of making new private buildings, as seen in many cases. All it takes is giving them enough money to make them leave on their own free will. If they don't want to, or if you're too cheap for that, what makes anyone think you have more "rights" to their property than these people do?? I can't ever agree to that, sorry.
  - gknoy 11y ago
    If they can't afford to buy expensive water (which we need for sewers, showers, washing dishes, etc -- not merely drinking), chances are that they'd have a hard time finding the money to move elsewhere, even if it would be cheaper in the long-term to do so.
  - vacri 11y ago
    How very strange, in that you think that water should not be a resource appropriately managed/subsidised by a government, but you're totally on-board with the concept of private ownership of land - a concept wholly enabled by government. It's only the government's "threat of violence" that allows private ownership of land in the first place. You don't want the government to manage water for the benefit of the population? Why do you want government to manage land, then? Isn't it funny how libertarianism is always so lopsided? "Freedom for everyone, as long as the elites get to keep their status quo!". There's always some flowery rhetoric protecting the power of the elite...
bsder 11y ago
> because they obtained it 100 years ago when the region had fewer people? Because most of them didn't obtain it 100 years ago. Most of them obtained it as a subsidized attempted by California to settle the useless Central Valley. At this point, California needs to simply start buying out the agribusinesses and shutting them down. Unfortunately, this will kill the Central Valley. However, as we have seen, so will a lack of water.
SilasX 11y ago
David Zetland has outlined a system of "All-in Auctions" that would preserve water property rights while imposing an opportunity cost for using that water, by auctioning water usage and paying the funds to any rights holder to the extent that they forgo water extraction they would otherwise have the right to. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658193 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658193 That is, you can continue to invoke your traditional rights in the water, but you have to forgo cash payments from the new auctions for doing so. This would eliminate the ridiculous system of "use it or lose it" that results in farmers blowing $1 worth of water to produce $0.05 worth of crops.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Water rights are treated a lot like property rights. No, water rights are property rights.