6 ms·

Just make the price of water match the cost of it, and flood irrigation no longer becomes cost effective. Of course wrangling that through the entrenched intere

Just make the price of water match the cost of it, and flood irrigation no longer becomes cost effective. Of course wrangling that through the entrenched interests is another story.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
When you pump the water out of a well on your own property, how do you establish what the cost of the water really is?
- hedora 5y ago
  Water flows horizontally through aquifers, so water from your well isn't really "yours". California is starting to mandate meters on wells in some counties (as they should).
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    I am not 100% sure about the law in CA, but here in NM all the meters could do is check that you do not exceed the water rights associated with the property. Every piece of land has some amount of water rights (possibly zero), and you cannot be prevented from obtaining that much water from the land via wells. In most of the US west, the water you pull from groundwater reserves very much is yours as long as you do not exceed your alloted water rights. None of which helps with establishing the actual cost of the water. Granted, the situation with the CA and AZ irrigation projects is somewhat different, since the water arrives on your land thanks to a massive federal government project. In this case, while it might not be accurate, determining and defining some sort of price is feasible.
    - hedora 5y ago
      I was referring to physics, not laws. The water allotments you describe are clearly unsustainable, unless they vary from year to year based on the local aquifer (if so, it's similar to what the CA meters check). I know the compacts with other states have trigger points that invalidate them during shortages. I wonder if the NM allotments work that way too. (If not, and they're fixed for all time, then NM is probably headed to a situation where there simply isn't any water.) The well water in CA mostly arrives due to snow pack melting and sinking into the aquifer. There are state projects to allow faster spring melts (thanks, climate change!) to reach the aquifer. They basically slow the flood water and cut ruts that let it drain into the aquifer instead of the ocean. Your "massive federal project" is probably referring to the California aquaducts and reservoirs, which are a separate water delivery network.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        Water rights in NM are not based on aquifer conditions, they are absolute inalienable rights associated with a piece of land. Yeah, I know, it's absolutely freakin' insane. Of course, nothing about the water rights actually says that you're going to get that much water. The interstate compacts for the Colorado and Rio Grande (also the Pecos) don't have anything directly to do with intra-state water rights. Obviously they are connected in some implicit way because it's all the same water. But this is why in general you can't fulfill water rights by pumping from rivers directly (its not impossible to do legally, just hard). Every drop of rain or snow that falls on NM is effectively pre-alloted (and the federal government already controls a large chunk of it). AFAIU, it's only the water delivered via aquaducts that can really be said to have a controllable cost. I know that CA generally prefers that farmers use that water and not pull from the acquifer, but my impression has been that they can't prevent farmers from using wells if they stay within the water rights associated with the land.
    - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
      New Mexico is about to lose its ability to govern water because it refuses to stop harming its neighbors https://www.abqjournal.com/2383522/nm-may-lose-ownership-of-its-water-rights.html https://www.abqjournal.com/2383522/nm-may-lose-ownership-of-...
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        AFAIU, this only impacts the San Juan (and likely the Chama diversion). But yeah, wow (also wow for an incredibly poorly written bit of journalism about a very important topic).
        JohnHaugeland 5y ago
        No, it's the whole state. The concept here, which is clearly and correctly communicated by the article, is simple. New Mexico believes that it has the final say on its water. New Mexico believes that every drop of water that falls in New Mexico is under New Mexico's final control. For 50 years, New Mexico has been "negotiating" with the Native Americans in their land, by running their own courts and deciding in their own favor, over and over again. This is blatantly illegal. The entities they are dealing with are soveirgn nations - entirely distinct countries - and we have been very, very clear with the states that they do not have dominion. If you're American, just think about all those casino fights. Every single one, lost. All of them. Why? Because *the states are not the owners of that land.* Those are other countries, and they get to set their own rules. The problem is that New Mexico has been robbing the Native Americans of their water for almost a century, and has become entirely dependant on water that does not belong to them. Over the last fifteen years, the Navajo have been saying "this is going too far, we don't have electricity or sewage or schools, you can't keep taking our resources for free." So New Mexico offered them about five cents on the dollar for their water, which amounted to about $1.3 billion. Then New Mexico took three times as much water as they purchased, and reneged on half the money. The Navajo finally said "enough" and took them to court, because New Mexico in 2019 took so much water that Navajo people started dying of thirst. New Mexico runs sprinklers on lawns in the open air, while taking away so much water from the Native Americans that they're dying. Every one of those beautiful trees in the near forest city of Santa Fe is built on the corpses of Navajo who died of thirst. The Navajo won. The State Engineer's Office immediately paniced, because more than 70% of New Mexico's water is stolen from the other countries that New Mexico thought it owned. They will all win too, if they try. The State Engineer's Office went to the court of appeals and said "please let us continue to steal the Native Americans' water, we know they're dying and we know they're another country and we're just a state, but the trees in our city parks are thirsty." For once, the US courts did the right thing. They said "no, and you're not allowed to raise it further." It's the whole state. The reason this is important is that every single source of water to New Mexico flows through the land of either The Nuntzi, the Navajo, the Goshutes, the Shoshone, the Shivwits, or the Koosharem. If they all take the route that the Navajo did, then Santa Fe no longer has a water supply at all. This article, that you said was incredibly poorly written, got all of these topics correct. I'm sorry you felt the need to insult the writer. It also makes me feel pretty bad for having brought it up, because I thought this would be worth your time. In the balance, it seems like you didn't learn what the real situation is. Good luck to you.

Just make the price of water match the cost of it, and flood irrigation no longer becomes cost effective. Of course wrangling that through the entrenched interests is another story.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

When you pump the water out of a well on your own property, how do you establish what the cost of the water really is?

hedora 5y ago
Water flows horizontally through aquifers, so water from your well isn't really "yours". California is starting to mandate meters on wells in some counties (as they should).
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  I am not 100% sure about the law in CA, but here in NM all the meters could do is check that you do not exceed the water rights associated with the property. Every piece of land has some amount of water rights (possibly zero), and you cannot be prevented from obtaining that much water from the land via wells. In most of the US west, the water you pull from groundwater reserves very much is yours as long as you do not exceed your alloted water rights. None of which helps with establishing the actual cost of the water. Granted, the situation with the CA and AZ irrigation projects is somewhat different, since the water arrives on your land thanks to a massive federal government project. In this case, while it might not be accurate, determining and defining some sort of price is feasible.
  - hedora 5y ago
    I was referring to physics, not laws. The water allotments you describe are clearly unsustainable, unless they vary from year to year based on the local aquifer (if so, it's similar to what the CA meters check). I know the compacts with other states have trigger points that invalidate them during shortages. I wonder if the NM allotments work that way too. (If not, and they're fixed for all time, then NM is probably headed to a situation where there simply isn't any water.) The well water in CA mostly arrives due to snow pack melting and sinking into the aquifer. There are state projects to allow faster spring melts (thanks, climate change!) to reach the aquifer. They basically slow the flood water and cut ruts that let it drain into the aquifer instead of the ocean. Your "massive federal project" is probably referring to the California aquaducts and reservoirs, which are a separate water delivery network.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Water rights in NM are not based on aquifer conditions, they are absolute inalienable rights associated with a piece of land. Yeah, I know, it's absolutely freakin' insane. Of course, nothing about the water rights actually says that you're going to get that much water. The interstate compacts for the Colorado and Rio Grande (also the Pecos) don't have anything directly to do with intra-state water rights. Obviously they are connected in some implicit way because it's all the same water. But this is why in general you can't fulfill water rights by pumping from rivers directly (its not impossible to do legally, just hard). Every drop of rain or snow that falls on NM is effectively pre-alloted (and the federal government already controls a large chunk of it). AFAIU, it's only the water delivered via aquaducts that can really be said to have a controllable cost. I know that CA generally prefers that farmers use that water and not pull from the acquifer, but my impression has been that they can't prevent farmers from using wells if they stay within the water rights associated with the land.
  - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
    New Mexico is about to lose its ability to govern water because it refuses to stop harming its neighbors https://www.abqjournal.com/2383522/nm-may-lose-ownership-of-its-water-rights.html https://www.abqjournal.com/2383522/nm-may-lose-ownership-of-...
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      AFAIU, this only impacts the San Juan (and likely the Chama diversion). But yeah, wow (also wow for an incredibly poorly written bit of journalism about a very important topic).
      - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
        No, it's the whole state. The concept here, which is clearly and correctly communicated by the article, is simple. New Mexico believes that it has the final say on its water. New Mexico believes that every drop of water that falls in New Mexico is under New Mexico's final control. For 50 years, New Mexico has been "negotiating" with the Native Americans in their land, by running their own courts and deciding in their own favor, over and over again. This is blatantly illegal. The entities they are dealing with are soveirgn nations - entirely distinct countries - and we have been very, very clear with the states that they do not have dominion. If you're American, just think about all those casino fights. Every single one, lost. All of them. Why? Because *the states are not the owners of that land.* Those are other countries, and they get to set their own rules. The problem is that New Mexico has been robbing the Native Americans of their water for almost a century, and has become entirely dependant on water that does not belong to them. Over the last fifteen years, the Navajo have been saying "this is going too far, we don't have electricity or sewage or schools, you can't keep taking our resources for free." So New Mexico offered them about five cents on the dollar for their water, which amounted to about $1.3 billion. Then New Mexico took three times as much water as they purchased, and reneged on half the money. The Navajo finally said "enough" and took them to court, because New Mexico in 2019 took so much water that Navajo people started dying of thirst. New Mexico runs sprinklers on lawns in the open air, while taking away so much water from the Native Americans that they're dying. Every one of those beautiful trees in the near forest city of Santa Fe is built on the corpses of Navajo who died of thirst. The Navajo won. The State Engineer's Office immediately paniced, because more than 70% of New Mexico's water is stolen from the other countries that New Mexico thought it owned. They will all win too, if they try. The State Engineer's Office went to the court of appeals and said "please let us continue to steal the Native Americans' water, we know they're dying and we know they're another country and we're just a state, but the trees in our city parks are thirsty." For once, the US courts did the right thing. They said "no, and you're not allowed to raise it further." It's the whole state. The reason this is important is that every single source of water to New Mexico flows through the land of either The Nuntzi, the Navajo, the Goshutes, the Shoshone, the Shivwits, or the Koosharem. If they all take the route that the Navajo did, then Santa Fe no longer has a water supply at all. This article, that you said was incredibly poorly written, got all of these topics correct. I'm sorry you felt the need to insult the writer. It also makes me feel pretty bad for having brought it up, because I thought this would be worth your time. In the balance, it seems like you didn't learn what the real situation is. Good luck to you.