3 ms·
> I live on a river, and we can’t swim after a heavy rain because of all the crap washed into the river from upstream farms. If I had property rights in the wat
by klenwell 8y ago
> I live on a river, and we can’t swim after a heavy rain because of all the crap washed into the river from upstream farms. If I had property rights in the water, I could sue those farmers, and the price of food would rise to reflect the externalities of farming.
This is a thought-provoking argument. But if you had property rights, could you not also restrict access to the river so that no one else could swim on it? And what if you don't care to swim in your river but are fine with accepting upstream pollution in exchange for payment from the polluters? What if a big agro-conglomerate simply buys the river?
It seems to me that key to the traditional riperian doctrine you cite is not property rights so much as the legal regulation:
> property owners cannot impair the quality of water flowing through their land
If water quality must be maintained, what does it matter whether it is individual property owners or the EPA taking up the cause? If we can imagine a future where riperian doctrines could be retightened to strengthen the rights of downstream property owners, why not imagine one where a properly managed and funded state or federal agency takes responsibility?
- erikpukinskis 8y ago> why not imagine one where a properly managed and funded state or federal agency takes responsibility? Why bother? Existing property law should be enough. If you poison water on my property, you pay me to make things right. There’s no need for any government involvement besides civil courts, and investigative bodies (FBI, local detectives, etc). In practice these property owners don’t really believe in private property. They think they can just dump contaminants onto other people’s property because containment is inconvenient. It’s not a consistent moral position and their time is coming. There will be a reckoning and they will (financially) pay for their crimes. The arc of the law is long but bends towards justice. Don’t get me started on the upcoming resolution of Native American and chattel slave property rights, which are as yet largely unadjudicated. Most (not all) property in this country was illegally seized, and he courts have yet to rule on the true ownership of most of those plots.
- harryh 8y agowhat does it matter whether it is individual property owners or the EPA taking up the cause Because, as you can see, the EPA is subject to the whims of politics and will wax and wane in effectiveness. Property rights, however, will be consistently effective.
- cecilpl2 8y agoWikipedia on "Riparian doctrine" indicates it's a limited and specialized form of property rights. > Under the riparian principle, all landowners whose properties adjoin a body of water have the right to make reasonable use of it as it flows through or over their properties. If there is not enough water to satisfy all users, allotments are generally fixed in proportion to frontage on the water source. These rights cannot be sold or transferred other than with the adjoining land and only in reasonable quantities associated with that land. The water cannot be transferred out of the watershed without due consideration as to the rights of the downstream riparian landowners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_water_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_water_rights
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]