4 ms·

Why doesn't California use a more market-based approach? It could simply decide how much water can be sustainably consumed and then auction-off rights to that a

Why doesn't California use a more market-based approach? It could simply decide how much water can be sustainably consumed and then auction-off rights to that amount of water.

pstrateman 5y ago
Because water rights in California are extremely complicated, many water rights predate California being a state.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Why doesn't California use a more market-based approach? It could simply decide how much water can be sustainably consumed and then auction-off rights to that amount of water. Because it would have to first seize by eminent domain lots of permanently held rights in order to put them into an auction, and the costs of the initial purchases would be prohibitive. In the US, a State can't just up and decide to conduct, say, an annual auction for use of property that someone already permanently owns, and that's how a lot of water rights are.
- simfree 5y ago
  The water in aquifers, streams, rivers and lakes should not be considered something you can hold the right to as private property. These are public resources, and in many other places you can own the land below a lake or river, but you do not have a right to divert or impound said water, and the Department of Natural Resources will serve you notice and take corrective action (eg: blowing up your dam, seizing your pumps and destroying your pipe/trench) if you do not comply.
  - candiodari 5y ago
    But it was, and then sold, by the government to these farmers. And the real issue is, of course, not that they want it back, but that they want it back without paying for it. And people are mad because their water use for lawns is billed very differently, and rationed, because they never purchased the rights to it. So government did something stupid, not paying for it made the problem get delayed, and grow massively, and now it’s critical. The government, especially now that the problem is so much bigger, definitely doesn’t want to pay. “The initial purchases would be cost prohibitive”.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The water in aquifers, streams, rivers and lakes should not be considered something you can hold the right to as private property. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it has been historically, and reversing that under the US Constitution requires compensation for the value of the property thereby deprived, see the 5th Amendment. It is not something that can be reversed by state fiat without compensation to owners. Short of a federal Constitutional amendment or California seceding from the Union, your desired model of water property rights can't just be willed into existence in the state.

Why doesn't California use a more market-based approach? It could simply decide how much water can be sustainably consumed and then auction-off rights to that amount of water.

pstrateman 5y ago

Because water rights in California are extremely complicated, many water rights predate California being a state.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Why doesn't California use a more market-based approach? It could simply decide how much water can be sustainably consumed and then auction-off rights to that amount of water. Because it would have to first seize by eminent domain lots of permanently held rights in order to put them into an auction, and the costs of the initial purchases would be prohibitive. In the US, a State can't just up and decide to conduct, say, an annual auction for use of property that someone already permanently owns, and that's how a lot of water rights are.

simfree 5y ago
The water in aquifers, streams, rivers and lakes should not be considered something you can hold the right to as private property. These are public resources, and in many other places you can own the land below a lake or river, but you do not have a right to divert or impound said water, and the Department of Natural Resources will serve you notice and take corrective action (eg: blowing up your dam, seizing your pumps and destroying your pipe/trench) if you do not comply.
- candiodari 5y ago
  But it was, and then sold, by the government to these farmers. And the real issue is, of course, not that they want it back, but that they want it back without paying for it. And people are mad because their water use for lawns is billed very differently, and rationed, because they never purchased the rights to it. So government did something stupid, not paying for it made the problem get delayed, and grow massively, and now it’s critical. The government, especially now that the problem is so much bigger, definitely doesn’t want to pay. “The initial purchases would be cost prohibitive”.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The water in aquifers, streams, rivers and lakes should not be considered something you can hold the right to as private property. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it has been historically, and reversing that under the US Constitution requires compensation for the value of the property thereby deprived, see the 5th Amendment. It is not something that can be reversed by state fiat without compensation to owners. Short of a federal Constitutional amendment or California seceding from the Union, your desired model of water property rights can't just be willed into existence in the state.