6 ms·
Huh? Those signs all are arguing for more free water for agriculture. That’s not the opposite of “The politicians won’t tell farmers to pay for their inefficie
by mercutio2 4y ago
Huh? Those signs all are arguing for more free water for agriculture.
That’s not the opposite of “The politicians won’t tell farmers to pay for their inefficient water use”.
Or maybe you’re arguing “yeah, politicians, won’t try to charge market rate for water, because the farmers are already up at arms at not having more subsidies thrown their way”?
- s1artibartfast 4y agoIt's not about subsidies, it is about water contracts and infrastructure that the farmers paid for up front.
- 8note 4y agoThe infrastructure that came with water in it? They built the Colorado River?
- s1artibartfast 4y agoMost of the fights over water in the central valley is over water coming from the American and Sacramento rivers, not the Colorado river. Bonds were raised and contracts were made with farmers for X gallons at Y price. The state water project doesn't want to uphold the contracts and this is what the farmers are demanding. There is a separate fight also going on about new laws preventing farmers pumping their own water with private wells. The state holds that the new laws supersede the water rights of the farmers, but that restricting their use does not constitute eminent domain and the farmers do not need to be compensated. There are a number of heated cases making their way through the courts regarding this now. Last, the waters imported from the Colorado River are used for drinking and domestic use, not for agriculture.