4 ms·
Yes, but they’d have to cut big checks to the existing rights holders.
by bradleyjg 5y ago
Yes, but they’d have to cut big checks to the existing rights holders.
- lumost 5y agoThe government doesn’t need to write me a check when they rezone my property and block future construction.
- bradleyjg 5y agoThat’s because the Supreme Court said that’s not a taking except in extreme cases. See Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) for the current state of the law on regulatory takings.
- lumost 5y agoWhich should open the door for regulating agricultural water use in California right? If California mandated that crops requiring more than X water per acre couldn’t be grown would that be a taking?
- bradleyjg 5y agoI don’t know if you could pass a law exactly like that, but it’s a good point that California could attack the problem from the other direction—-keep water law as is but squeeze the companies farming the desert using other parts of its regulatory toolkit.
- lumost 5y agoAye I’d also imagine that it is within the current legal framework to “tax” water property/rights in accordance with the allotment. It would be easy enough to exclude residential zoned water allotments from the taxes to avoid taxing drinking water.