4 ms·

Philosophically, you might be right, although even philosophers are aware of the tragedy of the commons. Practically, however, these are not serious questions.

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.

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.