3 ms·

> why are we considering making consumers pay for expensive desalinated drinking water instead of diverting snowmelt to drinking water? Water rights are a thin

> why are we considering making consumers pay for expensive desalinated drinking water instead of diverting snowmelt to drinking water? Water rights are a thing. In order to divert that water, it would essentially be eminent domain, and you'd have to compensate farmers. It wouldn't just be the dollar amount for wholesale water, it'd be what it does to the value of the land, too. You could see farmland go from $30,000 per acre to $5,000. There are also second-order economic effects. It could cause a dust bowl-like recession in the central valley. And then you run into all the other crops that are grown there. Expect peaches and melons to double in price.

coryrc 5y ago
Let's just bite the bullet, end the water rights system and auction the water, using the money to pay back the cost. The thing is, peaches, melons, etc aren't going to double in price. Just stop growing alfala: https://ucmanagedrought.ucdavis.edu/Agriculture/Crop_Irrigation_Strategies/Alfalfa/ https://ucmanagedrought.ucdavis.edu/Agriculture/Crop_Irrigat... It's worth little but it's "the largest agricultural user in California" because their water is free.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  That seems crazy. If people are going to be putting in orchards and vineyards you don't want to wreck their investments by exposing them to a pure highest-bidder free market for water. There is good reason to have state-level planning and intervention for water and food. It just happens that our existing interventions - that a handful of 20th century crooks are guaranteed water at $5/acre foot not adjusted for inflation, forever - are extremely poor examples of such interventions.
  - DubiousPusher 5y ago
    Obviously you would auction water leases for terms long enough to ensure the intended economic activity remained viable. It's actually pretty wise IMO. And despite the other poster's straw manning here, I think something similar should be done with land and mineral rights.
- kragen 5y ago
  You could apply the same approach to the homelessness problem: "Let's just bite the bullet, end the land ownership system and auction the land, using the money to pay back the cost." I guess the idea is that every house is up for rent every year, rent decided by auction and payable to the government, who then compensates the former owners? Are you in favor of that approach to land tenure? If not, why would water rights be different?
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    The solution is actually straight forward. Recognise that property rights didn't just start with the Europeans coming to the americas, so all current land ownership is illegal. Now this obviously would open a whole different can of worms, but I always find it amazing that people argue you can't do things because of property rights while all land ownership in the US is essentially based on illegally taking the rights of previous occupiers.
    - kragen 5y ago
      It's not illegal, the thieves passed laws to legalize it. Illegal and immoral aren't the same. I think your usage of the word "solution" here is also at odds with common usage.
    - replygirl 5y ago
      > property rights didn't just start with the Europeans coming to the americas, so all current land ownership is illegal ehh, property rights here sorta did come out of colonization, much of the land was bought from communities who didn't have a concept of private property. it's not a technical issue of legality, it's that this was unjust and wrong. > Now this obviously would open a whole different can of worms potentially undermining the legal and economic foundation of contemporary tribal sovereignty, for one.
      - kragen 5y ago
        All Native American communities had concepts of land tenure, even if it was collective rather than individual.
cameldrv 5y ago
Ok why can’t the farmers just sell the water to the cities then or have a city buy some farmland with water rights?
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  They can, The problem is that the cities and state refuses to buy the water rights. They want eminent domain without the cost. There are several court cases about this right now.
- nradov 5y ago
  They can. That is already common in farming areas where we have the infrastructure to move water. https://modernfarmer.com/2015/03/california-farmers-are-selling-water-to-the-state-instead-of-growing-crops/ https://modernfarmer.com/2015/03/california-farmers-are-sell...
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    And the other thing also happens. When LADWP bought up all the land with water rights along the Owens River people acted like it was the crime of the century.

coryrc 5y ago

Let's just bite the bullet, end the water rights system and auction the water, using the money to pay back the cost. The thing is, peaches, melons, etc aren't going to double in price. Just stop growing alfala: https://ucmanagedrought.ucdavis.edu/Agriculture/Crop_Irrigation_Strategies/Alfalfa/ https://ucmanagedrought.ucdavis.edu/Agriculture/Crop_Irrigat... It's worth little but it's "the largest agricultural user in California" because their water is free.

jeffbee 5y ago
That seems crazy. If people are going to be putting in orchards and vineyards you don't want to wreck their investments by exposing them to a pure highest-bidder free market for water. There is good reason to have state-level planning and intervention for water and food. It just happens that our existing interventions - that a handful of 20th century crooks are guaranteed water at $5/acre foot not adjusted for inflation, forever - are extremely poor examples of such interventions.
- DubiousPusher 5y ago
  Obviously you would auction water leases for terms long enough to ensure the intended economic activity remained viable. It's actually pretty wise IMO. And despite the other poster's straw manning here, I think something similar should be done with land and mineral rights.
kragen 5y ago
You could apply the same approach to the homelessness problem: "Let's just bite the bullet, end the land ownership system and auction the land, using the money to pay back the cost." I guess the idea is that every house is up for rent every year, rent decided by auction and payable to the government, who then compensates the former owners? Are you in favor of that approach to land tenure? If not, why would water rights be different?
- cycomanic 5y ago
  The solution is actually straight forward. Recognise that property rights didn't just start with the Europeans coming to the americas, so all current land ownership is illegal. Now this obviously would open a whole different can of worms, but I always find it amazing that people argue you can't do things because of property rights while all land ownership in the US is essentially based on illegally taking the rights of previous occupiers.
  - kragen 5y ago
    It's not illegal, the thieves passed laws to legalize it. Illegal and immoral aren't the same. I think your usage of the word "solution" here is also at odds with common usage.
  - replygirl 5y ago
    > property rights didn't just start with the Europeans coming to the americas, so all current land ownership is illegal ehh, property rights here sorta did come out of colonization, much of the land was bought from communities who didn't have a concept of private property. it's not a technical issue of legality, it's that this was unjust and wrong. > Now this obviously would open a whole different can of worms potentially undermining the legal and economic foundation of contemporary tribal sovereignty, for one.
    - kragen 5y ago
      All Native American communities had concepts of land tenure, even if it was collective rather than individual.

cameldrv 5y ago

Ok why can’t the farmers just sell the water to the cities then or have a city buy some farmland with water rights?

s1artibartfast 5y ago
They can, The problem is that the cities and state refuses to buy the water rights. They want eminent domain without the cost. There are several court cases about this right now.
nradov 5y ago
They can. That is already common in farming areas where we have the infrastructure to move water. https://modernfarmer.com/2015/03/california-farmers-are-selling-water-to-the-state-instead-of-growing-crops/ https://modernfarmer.com/2015/03/california-farmers-are-sell...
- jeffbee 5y ago
  And the other thing also happens. When LADWP bought up all the land with water rights along the Owens River people acted like it was the crime of the century.