3 ms·

> the state eminent domained their water rights without compensation. To be fair, the water rights in California were asinine, to the point that if you could c

> the state eminent domained their water rights without compensation. To be fair, the water rights in California were asinine, to the point that if you could connect to the aquifer you could take as much as you want, regardless of your size of land or need, and the collapse of the aquifers during overuse in drought caused entire cities to lose access to water as their wells dried up, and the farmers that could afford to dig deeper wells to access more water did so. Much of this was in support of farmers switching to more water intensive crops that were worth more (like almonds) because they could take advantage of the lax water rights of the state. This has been a long time coming and reported widely and loudly for a decade now. Farmers in CA knew they had a choice over that time to either try to be part of a solution by switching to less water intensive crops and try to help (and possibly not be entirely caught unprepared as a major resource went from essentially free and unlimited to definitely not) but lose out on the additional income that granted them, or to continue to try to cash in on the status quo and make the problem worse but as a gamble because they could be caught out if it changes from under them, or to remove themselves from that market and do something else. I don't wish death or suicide on any of them, but it's not like this isn't a problem they had no part in bringing about, or like the entire state should suffer because they wanted to keep the status quo, so my sympathy is offset to some degree by those facts.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
I'm for balancing aquifers for long term sustainability, but the way to do it is to buy the groundwater rights from farmers who own them. If the state wants your house for public benefit, they have to pay you for it at market rate. They can't just size it and throw you on the street. The current implementation of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (GWMA) is largely ignores prior ownership and is in conflict with CA property law. [edit] The 2014 GWMA did not dissolve groundwater rights, but rather enabled the levying of arbitrarily high fines for exercising those rights. They don't have to use eminent domain to purchase the groundwater rights, but farmers cant use them. In this way, it hopes to let the sate have its cake and eat it too. I suspect the implementation will eventually be overturned and revised by the courts, but not before most of the farmers harmed have lost everything.
- kbenson 5y ago
  > the way to do it is to buy the groundwater rights from farmers who own them. As I stated, the way groundwater rights were before was brain dead. It makes no sense to buy partial rights when the use limits are "unlimited", and buying full rights means that the farmer can't grow at all, but even if you tried to do that the farmer would tell you to go to hell because you're how much are you offering for the alternative, which is a theoretical effectively unlimited amount of water? I'm not going to defend the specific way they went about changing it, but I am going to restate that the water rights have been a complete mess since forever, farmers have been taking advantage of this in CA since it's been that way, and if they're getting the short end of the stick right now, well I'm not going to lose too much sleep since they've had such an awesomely good deal to this point and used it to put the entire state in a bad place. I feel bad for anyone that started farming recently and got caught up in this (but really, they should have looked at the state of what what going on and reassessed), but for anyone that's been taking advantage of the situation for decades, you've got an uphill battle to convince me they deserve better. For anyone that wasn't overusing water previously, I would like to hope they aren't being fined a lot or at all. I suspect that those complaining about large fines are probably people that have been extreme water users in the past. If not, I'm happy to hear of someone making a case they don't deserve their fines that has had both sides weigh in. > but not before most of the farmers harmed have lost everything. They gambled that there wasn't going to be a revision of water rights that stopped their overuse, and they lost that gamble. They all knew what they were doing. It was one of the biggest stories in the state for multiple years.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I'm not sure that I will change your mind but I wanted to clear up a couple misconceptions. >As I stated, the way groundwater rights were before was brain dead. On this we can agree >It makes no sense to buy partial rights when the use limits are "unlimited", and buying full rights means that the farmer can't grow at all, but even if you tried to do that the farmer would tell you to go to hell because you're how much are you offering for the alternative, which is a theoretical effectively unlimited amount of water? Groundwater rights are not unlimited in places where multiple people use the water. If you share an aquafer with others, rights are granted based on historic seniority and frozen at historic usage. If there is not enough water to support all of the users, water use is capped and the last new user loses their usage first. If a new user wants water, they can buy the rights to take X gallons/year from someone with the right. Historically, when cities grew or new farms moved in, they did just that. Alternatively If you were the only user of an aquafer, you had the right to drain it dry. Like oil, gold, or other natural resources, you literally bought the rights to all of it with the land. This was the precedent and is the law, so I think it is unfair to characterize the farmers as abusing the system, especially those that have been operating within their X gallons/year or priority rights. In some instances, it was even the state of California that originally sold them the right to X gallons/year in perpetuity. Que 2014. The state mandated that all aquafers have neutral input and output by 2040 and this is where things get crazy. Instead of unwinding of usage based on priority of assigned groundwater rights per the law, commissions were set up to resolve the problem. The commissions don't have the legal power to take away the water rights, or the funds to eminent domain them, so the settled on selectively fining farmers for exercising their water rights as the least legally questionable path forward. These are the cases proceeding through the courts now. However, most small to moderate farms don't have funds for a decade of legal battle against the state. >For anyone that wasn't overusing water previously, I would like to hope they aren't being fined a lot or at all. I suspect that those complaining about large fines are probably people that have been extreme water users in the past. If not, I'm happy to hear of someone making a case they don't deserve their fines that has had both sides weigh in. The implementation is not to structured to curtail "overuse". "Fines" are a flat rate/gallon and set above 10x the possible revenue/gallon in some areas. This means there is no relief by scaling back. The point is to drive farms business out entirely. Many farmers offered to compromise by winding down their businesses, stop planting, and then fully pull up their farms and bring water usage to 0 by the 2040 deadline. This would keep them from losing their lives work, let them recoup costs, while meeting the state mandate. The state found this compromise unacceptable. >They gambled that there wasn't going to be a revision of water rights that stopped their overuse, and they lost that gamble. The farmers gambled that the rule of law would protect them and respect their groundwater rights, and in this respect, they were overconfident. I'm sure the largest users that are fighting will get paid out handsomely in settlement. However, the state probably saved billions by not buying the rights from the small farms and simply destroying their lives. >They all knew what they were doing. It was one of the biggest stories in the state for multiple years. They knew it was coming but had no possible exit strategy. Nut trees are profitable but have long lead times to return investment, especially smaller farms with lower profit margins. If your life savings and retirement are tied up in a non-fungible asset for 20 years, all you can do is hope.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

I'm for balancing aquifers for long term sustainability, but the way to do it is to buy the groundwater rights from farmers who own them. If the state wants your house for public benefit, they have to pay you for it at market rate. They can't just size it and throw you on the street. The current implementation of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (GWMA) is largely ignores prior ownership and is in conflict with CA property law. [edit] The 2014 GWMA did not dissolve groundwater rights, but rather enabled the levying of arbitrarily high fines for exercising those rights. They don't have to use eminent domain to purchase the groundwater rights, but farmers cant use them. In this way, it hopes to let the sate have its cake and eat it too. I suspect the implementation will eventually be overturned and revised by the courts, but not before most of the farmers harmed have lost everything.

kbenson 5y ago
> the way to do it is to buy the groundwater rights from farmers who own them. As I stated, the way groundwater rights were before was brain dead. It makes no sense to buy partial rights when the use limits are "unlimited", and buying full rights means that the farmer can't grow at all, but even if you tried to do that the farmer would tell you to go to hell because you're how much are you offering for the alternative, which is a theoretical effectively unlimited amount of water? I'm not going to defend the specific way they went about changing it, but I am going to restate that the water rights have been a complete mess since forever, farmers have been taking advantage of this in CA since it's been that way, and if they're getting the short end of the stick right now, well I'm not going to lose too much sleep since they've had such an awesomely good deal to this point and used it to put the entire state in a bad place. I feel bad for anyone that started farming recently and got caught up in this (but really, they should have looked at the state of what what going on and reassessed), but for anyone that's been taking advantage of the situation for decades, you've got an uphill battle to convince me they deserve better. For anyone that wasn't overusing water previously, I would like to hope they aren't being fined a lot or at all. I suspect that those complaining about large fines are probably people that have been extreme water users in the past. If not, I'm happy to hear of someone making a case they don't deserve their fines that has had both sides weigh in. > but not before most of the farmers harmed have lost everything. They gambled that there wasn't going to be a revision of water rights that stopped their overuse, and they lost that gamble. They all knew what they were doing. It was one of the biggest stories in the state for multiple years.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I'm not sure that I will change your mind but I wanted to clear up a couple misconceptions. >As I stated, the way groundwater rights were before was brain dead. On this we can agree >It makes no sense to buy partial rights when the use limits are "unlimited", and buying full rights means that the farmer can't grow at all, but even if you tried to do that the farmer would tell you to go to hell because you're how much are you offering for the alternative, which is a theoretical effectively unlimited amount of water? Groundwater rights are not unlimited in places where multiple people use the water. If you share an aquafer with others, rights are granted based on historic seniority and frozen at historic usage. If there is not enough water to support all of the users, water use is capped and the last new user loses their usage first. If a new user wants water, they can buy the rights to take X gallons/year from someone with the right. Historically, when cities grew or new farms moved in, they did just that. Alternatively If you were the only user of an aquafer, you had the right to drain it dry. Like oil, gold, or other natural resources, you literally bought the rights to all of it with the land. This was the precedent and is the law, so I think it is unfair to characterize the farmers as abusing the system, especially those that have been operating within their X gallons/year or priority rights. In some instances, it was even the state of California that originally sold them the right to X gallons/year in perpetuity. Que 2014. The state mandated that all aquafers have neutral input and output by 2040 and this is where things get crazy. Instead of unwinding of usage based on priority of assigned groundwater rights per the law, commissions were set up to resolve the problem. The commissions don't have the legal power to take away the water rights, or the funds to eminent domain them, so the settled on selectively fining farmers for exercising their water rights as the least legally questionable path forward. These are the cases proceeding through the courts now. However, most small to moderate farms don't have funds for a decade of legal battle against the state. >For anyone that wasn't overusing water previously, I would like to hope they aren't being fined a lot or at all. I suspect that those complaining about large fines are probably people that have been extreme water users in the past. If not, I'm happy to hear of someone making a case they don't deserve their fines that has had both sides weigh in. The implementation is not to structured to curtail "overuse". "Fines" are a flat rate/gallon and set above 10x the possible revenue/gallon in some areas. This means there is no relief by scaling back. The point is to drive farms business out entirely. Many farmers offered to compromise by winding down their businesses, stop planting, and then fully pull up their farms and bring water usage to 0 by the 2040 deadline. This would keep them from losing their lives work, let them recoup costs, while meeting the state mandate. The state found this compromise unacceptable. >They gambled that there wasn't going to be a revision of water rights that stopped their overuse, and they lost that gamble. The farmers gambled that the rule of law would protect them and respect their groundwater rights, and in this respect, they were overconfident. I'm sure the largest users that are fighting will get paid out handsomely in settlement. However, the state probably saved billions by not buying the rights from the small farms and simply destroying their lives. >They all knew what they were doing. It was one of the biggest stories in the state for multiple years. They knew it was coming but had no possible exit strategy. Nut trees are profitable but have long lead times to return investment, especially smaller farms with lower profit margins. If your life savings and retirement are tied up in a non-fungible asset for 20 years, all you can do is hope.