3 ms·

we're going to need to get companies and farms onboard with water saving like we've done with residential users. flood irrigation wastes 50% of the water to eva

we're going to need to get companies and farms onboard with water saving like we've done with residential users. flood irrigation wastes 50% of the water to evaporation. That needs to be the first thing to go. Second, unlimited water rights can't exist. It doesn't make sense for the most arid land to grow the most water intensive crop alfalfa.

rektide 5y ago
The past has given vast & unsustainable water rights to farmers. Asking them to please change, please give up their rights, for free, seems unlikely. I think this is somewhat what your second point is saying, but I'm a bit confused about the unlimited part. Even those with limits have vast promises they've been made. I think eminent domain is necessary. Society has to take back those rights it falsely gave. And I don't think we (society) should be asked to pay current market value for the natural resources we once thought we could give away for free in perpetuity. I commented on the thread on drought from the other day that this feels like one of those situations where a city hands out a century long parking or traffic enforcement contract, and goes to the bank with some short term money. In this case, the situation feels even more dire & sad[1]; it deeply de-legitimizes the notion of governance at all that such mistakes were made. To continue to demand we accept the mistakes of the past forever to preserve the sense that government can be trusted is a gordian knot of a conundrum, but one we must, imo, slice open. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27449269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27449269
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I think it's basically economics (the allocation of scarce resources that have rival uses). Farmer A may have water rights to B amount of water that let him grow $C worth of alfalfa per year. But if the people of city D would value that water at ten times $C, then they should buy the water rights from farmer A at, say, three times $C, and everybody's good. > To continue to demand we accept the mistakes of the past forever to preserve the sense that government can be trusted is a gordian knot of a conundrum, but one we must, imo, slice open. We do it to preserve the rule of law, which is a really big deal. If it costs more money and effort to do it that way, it's worth it.
  - rektide 5y ago
    The law was unjust & unfair & gave away the future for nothing. This insistence that the past be able to legislate whatever future it want, and that preservation of that past is absolute, is bogus corrupt & full of shit. I can not begin to state how strongly, how illegitemate it is to tell all future generations they must suffer ancient tyrannies. Some compromise is necessary. This attitude that rule of law satisifies no negotiation is bizarre & I hear it again & again & again & I wish I had some way to express how radically disgusting it is. When it comes to water rights, the rule of law is literally destroying civilization. Yet some people insist these ancient rights must be upheld. The people with water rights have no natural or rightful claim above the rest of society: old society merely granted them a privilege, and said that privilege was eternal, no matter what. I have no respect for that corrupt law, and I have no patience for the attitude that it is a threat to law to uphold that which is literally destroying us. There is some Plato-grade everything-must-be-fixed-forever in-perfect-harmony never-changing horse-shit (see: Open Society and It's Enemies) to insist otherwise.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Just about everything handed to us by the past can be changed, but there are mechanisms through which you have to do it. Those mechanisms exist, right now, today. Stop whining. Go use them.
      - rektide 5y ago
        making my case & gathering dissent is part of the process. this place here, HN, is a part modern agora, part of how we the public see & align ourselves with the world & the past. telling me to stop, on the other hand, IS whining. i've done you no injury, no harm, but you are complaining of me & commanding me at the same time. i think you can do better. if you do not like my words, fine. you don't have to. you don't have to change your stance either, you are welcome to it. but to me, it reads of complaint & personal expectations.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
nradov 5y ago
Israeli farms are highly water efficient by necessity. We can adopt many of their techniques.
- rektide 5y ago
  Farmers were granted fantastically huge water rights a long time ago. Before society understood any reasonable idea of necessity. Many people seem to want to argue that, if society wants water, it should negotiate whatever rate it can to buy back water rights from the descendants of those who were bequeathed colossal, perpetual rights to water. I personally think some collectivism is necessary & warranted. We are facing true cataclysm. To mediate this exchange via capitalism, to tell society that some ridiculous grant made long long long ago, at no cost, must be upheld, is to me to spit in the face of society. It is injust & tyrannical. We must live in a more open society that can renew it's law, that can re-establish basis, where the future is not pre-determined by some ancient sale. I see similar challenges afoot with, for example, FCC's spectrum auction bonanzas. FCC has proudly announced early this year that they've sold $81B in licenses in the 3.7 GHz area. My understanding is that, like water rights, we are seemingly divying up our limited natural resources today in perpetuity (did some digging; sort of true: 15 year license with expectation of a seemingly non-competitive renewal process), granting gigantic mega-corporations colossal fantastically huge troves of resources that they can use for lifetimes and lifetimes and lifetimes. Kings have been decided: farmers, wireless carriers: the future has been sold off to one time bidders, to whomever was around back then. Everything about these things stinks to high heavens. This is not decent or correct. This is tyranny. This is illegitimate. This atemporal form of decision making, this anti-future decision making basis, must never ever be permitted. Sustainability (admit ongoing shifts in context), ongoing cost, an ability for new entrants to begin, to compete, having an ability to purchase fairly & not from those who already hold all the rights, must be established. It is necessary for society to not have stale, ossified systems of power that we are stuck with, that own the water, that own the air, that own all the systems about us. Society must be more open than that. To simply say it is a necessity to be more resourceful is not sufficient: there must be ongoing cause for renewal, for reassessment. When we make a sale of resources, once, for perpetuity, that party holds all the power, they have all the bargaining rights to make as much profit as they might dream by holding that limited resource tight until finally they favor change. This is tyranny. This is ill governance. This is against society. By necessity, we may not permit such forms of governance, such vile deal makings as this. There must be some way to acknowledge the evident necessity we find ourselves in. Presently it feels like there is nothing to correct the situation. Entitlement rules the land.

rektide 5y ago

The past has given vast & unsustainable water rights to farmers. Asking them to please change, please give up their rights, for free, seems unlikely. I think this is somewhat what your second point is saying, but I'm a bit confused about the unlimited part. Even those with limits have vast promises they've been made. I think eminent domain is necessary. Society has to take back those rights it falsely gave. And I don't think we (society) should be asked to pay current market value for the natural resources we once thought we could give away for free in perpetuity. I commented on the thread on drought from the other day that this feels like one of those situations where a city hands out a century long parking or traffic enforcement contract, and goes to the bank with some short term money. In this case, the situation feels even more dire & sad[1]; it deeply de-legitimizes the notion of governance at all that such mistakes were made. To continue to demand we accept the mistakes of the past forever to preserve the sense that government can be trusted is a gordian knot of a conundrum, but one we must, imo, slice open. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27449269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27449269

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I think it's basically economics (the allocation of scarce resources that have rival uses). Farmer A may have water rights to B amount of water that let him grow $C worth of alfalfa per year. But if the people of city D would value that water at ten times $C, then they should buy the water rights from farmer A at, say, three times $C, and everybody's good. > To continue to demand we accept the mistakes of the past forever to preserve the sense that government can be trusted is a gordian knot of a conundrum, but one we must, imo, slice open. We do it to preserve the rule of law, which is a really big deal. If it costs more money and effort to do it that way, it's worth it.
- rektide 5y ago
  The law was unjust & unfair & gave away the future for nothing. This insistence that the past be able to legislate whatever future it want, and that preservation of that past is absolute, is bogus corrupt & full of shit. I can not begin to state how strongly, how illegitemate it is to tell all future generations they must suffer ancient tyrannies. Some compromise is necessary. This attitude that rule of law satisifies no negotiation is bizarre & I hear it again & again & again & I wish I had some way to express how radically disgusting it is. When it comes to water rights, the rule of law is literally destroying civilization. Yet some people insist these ancient rights must be upheld. The people with water rights have no natural or rightful claim above the rest of society: old society merely granted them a privilege, and said that privilege was eternal, no matter what. I have no respect for that corrupt law, and I have no patience for the attitude that it is a threat to law to uphold that which is literally destroying us. There is some Plato-grade everything-must-be-fixed-forever in-perfect-harmony never-changing horse-shit (see: Open Society and It's Enemies) to insist otherwise.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Just about everything handed to us by the past can be changed, but there are mechanisms through which you have to do it. Those mechanisms exist, right now, today. Stop whining. Go use them.
    - rektide 5y ago
      making my case & gathering dissent is part of the process. this place here, HN, is a part modern agora, part of how we the public see & align ourselves with the world & the past. telling me to stop, on the other hand, IS whining. i've done you no injury, no harm, but you are complaining of me & commanding me at the same time. i think you can do better. if you do not like my words, fine. you don't have to. you don't have to change your stance either, you are welcome to it. but to me, it reads of complaint & personal expectations.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago

nradov 5y ago

Israeli farms are highly water efficient by necessity. We can adopt many of their techniques.

rektide 5y ago
Farmers were granted fantastically huge water rights a long time ago. Before society understood any reasonable idea of necessity. Many people seem to want to argue that, if society wants water, it should negotiate whatever rate it can to buy back water rights from the descendants of those who were bequeathed colossal, perpetual rights to water. I personally think some collectivism is necessary & warranted. We are facing true cataclysm. To mediate this exchange via capitalism, to tell society that some ridiculous grant made long long long ago, at no cost, must be upheld, is to me to spit in the face of society. It is injust & tyrannical. We must live in a more open society that can renew it's law, that can re-establish basis, where the future is not pre-determined by some ancient sale. I see similar challenges afoot with, for example, FCC's spectrum auction bonanzas. FCC has proudly announced early this year that they've sold $81B in licenses in the 3.7 GHz area. My understanding is that, like water rights, we are seemingly divying up our limited natural resources today in perpetuity (did some digging; sort of true: 15 year license with expectation of a seemingly non-competitive renewal process), granting gigantic mega-corporations colossal fantastically huge troves of resources that they can use for lifetimes and lifetimes and lifetimes. Kings have been decided: farmers, wireless carriers: the future has been sold off to one time bidders, to whomever was around back then. Everything about these things stinks to high heavens. This is not decent or correct. This is tyranny. This is illegitimate. This atemporal form of decision making, this anti-future decision making basis, must never ever be permitted. Sustainability (admit ongoing shifts in context), ongoing cost, an ability for new entrants to begin, to compete, having an ability to purchase fairly & not from those who already hold all the rights, must be established. It is necessary for society to not have stale, ossified systems of power that we are stuck with, that own the water, that own the air, that own all the systems about us. Society must be more open than that. To simply say it is a necessity to be more resourceful is not sufficient: there must be ongoing cause for renewal, for reassessment. When we make a sale of resources, once, for perpetuity, that party holds all the power, they have all the bargaining rights to make as much profit as they might dream by holding that limited resource tight until finally they favor change. This is tyranny. This is ill governance. This is against society. By necessity, we may not permit such forms of governance, such vile deal makings as this. There must be some way to acknowledge the evident necessity we find ourselves in. Presently it feels like there is nothing to correct the situation. Entitlement rules the land.