9 ms·

Agriculture... In a society governed by law, the straightforward way to confiscate a regular benefit received by a particular group is to pay that group to for

Agriculture... In a society governed by law, the straightforward way to confiscate a regular benefit received by a particular group is to pay that group to forego their statutory right to that benefit. Until we pony up the cash to pay farmers to use less of the water they own, one concludes that the problem of low flows on the Colorado doesn't really concern TPTB.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Statutory right? Owning water? Anyone east of the Mississippi wouldn't have any idea what these terms mean. They exist in the west due to accidents of history, combined with the US love for "private property". For example, before NM became a US state, water was managed here at the community level (acqueias), and there was absolutely no notion that anyone owned the water. NM only became a state in 1912, so you're talking about a system that has only existed for a little more than 100 years.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  Philosophically, you might be right, although even philosophers are aware of the tragedy of the commons. Practically, however, these are not serious questions. As long as time and effort is wasted on demonizing farmers rather than cooperating in pursuit of our mutual goals, water levels will continue to drop.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Actually, there is and never has been a tragedy of the commons. Historically, commons have been managed by highly evolved communal practice. The so-called tragedies occured after powerful interests first dismantled those practices, and then sought to exploit the commons. Even Hardin (originator of the ToC concept) has acknowledged this. The idea that human societies had commons that were just open to anyone to do anything, and thus they got screwed up is completely ahistorical. It's also a widely used tool in the rhetorical arguments deployed against a return to true (historical) commons. I am not aware of anyone demonizing farmers. It's not demonizing farmers to note the evaporative loss caused by flood and spray irrigation - that's simply a fact. It's not demonizing farmers to note that the whole idea of turning the highly insolated SW into a garden for the nation was originated at a specific time and place, by a specific group of people who refused to be curious about water. It's not demonizing farmers to note that the practice of growing crops for export is effectively the same as exporting water. But yes, cooperation in pursuit of mutal goals is a great idea. One approach that I think has a lot of promise is a system that affects the purchase of water rights for municipal use, from farmers. The purchasing city pays some amount for the water rights, but then throws in a substantial additional payment to cover the capital cost of the farmer converting to drip irrigation. Everybody wins!
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      That seems like a lot of words for "yes I agree farmers should be paid to use less water." I'm just trying to be practical here, but perhaps there are interests served by avoiding obvious practical solutions.
  - jwarden 5y ago
    Water Rights are not an invention of the Western US. Scarcity of water is as old as society itself, and societies have developed countless different ways of allocating and enforcing that right. The ancient Romans had regulations on who could tap the aqueducts and what diameter of pipes they could use. The water court in Valencia still convenes every Thursday at midday to litigate water disputes, as it has for 1000 years.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      I think you've missed the point being made. Places with adequate levels of rainfall to grow crops without irrigation (even if irrigation may improve yield) generally do not have any concept of water rights. Water is considered to be a common good, like sun, wind, though more administered by conventional government means (whatever they might be in a particular part of the world). This is true of places with less water also, though the level of regulation and control was generally higher because of the increased value of water. This was true in Nuevo Mexico too, which inherited the acequia system from the Spanish (who had in turn received/been pushed into it by the Moors). The Valencia water court is one of the oldest still existing acequia systems in the world, and similar institutions used to exist across Spanish-controlled areas of north America. But the arrival of the US ditched any notion of communal control over who would receive water and when and how much. NM in particular adopted a "first in time, first in right" approach, in which water rights were established simply by pre-existing water use. Such water rights cannot be modified to accomodate for droughts or other higher priority needs as they would be in an acequia system, or east of the Mississippi, where some governmental-ish agency would decide on regulations and allocation. Instead, water rights in the US west are treated as essentially god-given, based on acknowledged ownership of land. The fact that your use of water may be in opposition to the broader aims of society has no impact on your water rights. This is likely to change over the next century (IMO), because it's just not viable in an era of reduced water availability. But for now, the system looks absolutely nothing like Roman regulation or the Valencia court syste (0). (0) There is a dispute resoluton mechanism to address "excess water taking" in the western US, but it is never based on need or priority, merely established water rights.
- eesmith 5y ago
  The process started during the territorial government. For those reading along, see https://online.nmartmuseum.org/nmhistory/people-places-and-politics/water/history-water.html https://online.nmartmuseum.org/nmhistory/people-places-and-p... for sense of the cultural differences PaulDavisThe1st is talking about: > American water law, which had been based largely on modified English Common Law practices, was developed east of the Mississippi River, where large amounts of rainfall virtually guaranteed an abundant water supply. East of the ninety-eighth meridian, agriculture could usually rely on adequate rainfall to insure sufficient crops. However, the area that the United States annexed as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was largely arid, with few perennial rivers and very little rainfall. Any agriculture developed in this region would have to rely on irrigation, a system unfamiliar to many Americans. > American political and social traditions further complicated the process. The American ideal of land distribution was deeply rooted in the belief of the sanctity of private property. This ideal celebrated the individual, independent farm and his family who cultivated the land on which they held legal ownership. At its basis, it reflected the assumption that abundant rainfall would support such independence. The belief in representative democracy as the supreme form of political organization was intimately related to this ideal. According to this perspective, independent farmers, owning their own land and free from economic servitude, voted for those leaders who they felt best represented their interests. The two credos of the United States, private property and republican democracy, deeply colored the view of those Americans who came to dominate the arid Southwest. ... > ... Fearing a loss of democratic independence, many American leaders would have agreed with the army engineer William H. Emory that any system of irrigation “involves a degree of subordination, and absolute obedience to a chief, repugnant to the habits of our people.” ... > ... the spirit of reluctant compromise did not completely erase the racial bigotries inherent in American culture. If white Americans in New Mexico found it necessary to incorporate aspects of the acequia system into their approach to water, they would change it to suit their worldview. One aspect of the acequia system that many white American leaders found offensive concerned the mayordomo. The mayordomo served as both local administrator and as a sort of water sheriff, whose duties included distributing water and commanding the mandatory labor of community inhabitants. To people raised on the rhetoric of independence and individualism, the mayordomo represented the worst aspects of a social system in which a few rich land owners lorded over an ignorant, dark-skinned peasantry. In 1895, the New Mexico territorial legislature dealt the traditional role of the mayordomo a deathblow by transferring his powers to ditch commissioners – a nod in the direction of science and efficiency. By the turn of the century, the entire acequia system would come under attack. EDIT: also read "The Milagro Beanfield War" for a fictional account of New Mexico water rights issues.
oh_sigh 5y ago
You could probably also do it without directly interacting with the farmers at all, by putting a water tax, similar to a carbon tax, on products that are produced in areas with non-abundant water resources. So, rice from Arkansas would remain the same price, but almonds from California might get a little more expensive. This could lead farmers to start making more rational choices with their water supplies out of their own self-interest, or investing in water-preserving technologies.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

Statutory right? Owning water? Anyone east of the Mississippi wouldn't have any idea what these terms mean. They exist in the west due to accidents of history, combined with the US love for "private property". For example, before NM became a US state, water was managed here at the community level (acqueias), and there was absolutely no notion that anyone owned the water. NM only became a state in 1912, so you're talking about a system that has only existed for a little more than 100 years.

jessaustin 5y ago
Philosophically, you might be right, although even philosophers are aware of the tragedy of the commons. Practically, however, these are not serious questions. As long as time and effort is wasted on demonizing farmers rather than cooperating in pursuit of our mutual goals, water levels will continue to drop.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Actually, there is and never has been a tragedy of the commons. Historically, commons have been managed by highly evolved communal practice. The so-called tragedies occured after powerful interests first dismantled those practices, and then sought to exploit the commons. Even Hardin (originator of the ToC concept) has acknowledged this. The idea that human societies had commons that were just open to anyone to do anything, and thus they got screwed up is completely ahistorical. It's also a widely used tool in the rhetorical arguments deployed against a return to true (historical) commons. I am not aware of anyone demonizing farmers. It's not demonizing farmers to note the evaporative loss caused by flood and spray irrigation - that's simply a fact. It's not demonizing farmers to note that the whole idea of turning the highly insolated SW into a garden for the nation was originated at a specific time and place, by a specific group of people who refused to be curious about water. It's not demonizing farmers to note that the practice of growing crops for export is effectively the same as exporting water. But yes, cooperation in pursuit of mutal goals is a great idea. One approach that I think has a lot of promise is a system that affects the purchase of water rights for municipal use, from farmers. The purchasing city pays some amount for the water rights, but then throws in a substantial additional payment to cover the capital cost of the farmer converting to drip irrigation. Everybody wins!
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    That seems like a lot of words for "yes I agree farmers should be paid to use less water." I'm just trying to be practical here, but perhaps there are interests served by avoiding obvious practical solutions.
- jwarden 5y ago
  Water Rights are not an invention of the Western US. Scarcity of water is as old as society itself, and societies have developed countless different ways of allocating and enforcing that right. The ancient Romans had regulations on who could tap the aqueducts and what diameter of pipes they could use. The water court in Valencia still convenes every Thursday at midday to litigate water disputes, as it has for 1000 years.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    I think you've missed the point being made. Places with adequate levels of rainfall to grow crops without irrigation (even if irrigation may improve yield) generally do not have any concept of water rights. Water is considered to be a common good, like sun, wind, though more administered by conventional government means (whatever they might be in a particular part of the world). This is true of places with less water also, though the level of regulation and control was generally higher because of the increased value of water. This was true in Nuevo Mexico too, which inherited the acequia system from the Spanish (who had in turn received/been pushed into it by the Moors). The Valencia water court is one of the oldest still existing acequia systems in the world, and similar institutions used to exist across Spanish-controlled areas of north America. But the arrival of the US ditched any notion of communal control over who would receive water and when and how much. NM in particular adopted a "first in time, first in right" approach, in which water rights were established simply by pre-existing water use. Such water rights cannot be modified to accomodate for droughts or other higher priority needs as they would be in an acequia system, or east of the Mississippi, where some governmental-ish agency would decide on regulations and allocation. Instead, water rights in the US west are treated as essentially god-given, based on acknowledged ownership of land. The fact that your use of water may be in opposition to the broader aims of society has no impact on your water rights. This is likely to change over the next century (IMO), because it's just not viable in an era of reduced water availability. But for now, the system looks absolutely nothing like Roman regulation or the Valencia court syste (0). (0) There is a dispute resoluton mechanism to address "excess water taking" in the western US, but it is never based on need or priority, merely established water rights.
eesmith 5y ago
The process started during the territorial government. For those reading along, see https://online.nmartmuseum.org/nmhistory/people-places-and-politics/water/history-water.html https://online.nmartmuseum.org/nmhistory/people-places-and-p... for sense of the cultural differences PaulDavisThe1st is talking about: > American water law, which had been based largely on modified English Common Law practices, was developed east of the Mississippi River, where large amounts of rainfall virtually guaranteed an abundant water supply. East of the ninety-eighth meridian, agriculture could usually rely on adequate rainfall to insure sufficient crops. However, the area that the United States annexed as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was largely arid, with few perennial rivers and very little rainfall. Any agriculture developed in this region would have to rely on irrigation, a system unfamiliar to many Americans. > American political and social traditions further complicated the process. The American ideal of land distribution was deeply rooted in the belief of the sanctity of private property. This ideal celebrated the individual, independent farm and his family who cultivated the land on which they held legal ownership. At its basis, it reflected the assumption that abundant rainfall would support such independence. The belief in representative democracy as the supreme form of political organization was intimately related to this ideal. According to this perspective, independent farmers, owning their own land and free from economic servitude, voted for those leaders who they felt best represented their interests. The two credos of the United States, private property and republican democracy, deeply colored the view of those Americans who came to dominate the arid Southwest. ... > ... Fearing a loss of democratic independence, many American leaders would have agreed with the army engineer William H. Emory that any system of irrigation “involves a degree of subordination, and absolute obedience to a chief, repugnant to the habits of our people.” ... > ... the spirit of reluctant compromise did not completely erase the racial bigotries inherent in American culture. If white Americans in New Mexico found it necessary to incorporate aspects of the acequia system into their approach to water, they would change it to suit their worldview. One aspect of the acequia system that many white American leaders found offensive concerned the mayordomo. The mayordomo served as both local administrator and as a sort of water sheriff, whose duties included distributing water and commanding the mandatory labor of community inhabitants. To people raised on the rhetoric of independence and individualism, the mayordomo represented the worst aspects of a social system in which a few rich land owners lorded over an ignorant, dark-skinned peasantry. In 1895, the New Mexico territorial legislature dealt the traditional role of the mayordomo a deathblow by transferring his powers to ditch commissioners – a nod in the direction of science and efficiency. By the turn of the century, the entire acequia system would come under attack. EDIT: also read "The Milagro Beanfield War" for a fictional account of New Mexico water rights issues.

oh_sigh 5y ago

You could probably also do it without directly interacting with the farmers at all, by putting a water tax, similar to a carbon tax, on products that are produced in areas with non-abundant water resources. So, rice from Arkansas would remain the same price, but almonds from California might get a little more expensive. This could lead farmers to start making more rational choices with their water supplies out of their own self-interest, or investing in water-preserving technologies.