5 ms·

That is an ignorant and short sighted viewpoint. There's all sorts of legal precedent tangling this up. While the math of where the water goes is straightforw

That is an ignorant and short sighted viewpoint. There's all sorts of legal precedent tangling this up. While the math of where the water goes is straightforward you can't just invalidate prior agreements and rules and whatnot without going through the process otherwise you just cause more problems because you send a message and set a precedent that the state will not honor its own rules. In the long term that is very damaging.

jjoonathan 4y ago
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Yes it is. Try and think a couple steps ahead. The system we live under only works because people believe in it and more or less voluntarily play by the rules. Feel free to undermine state legitimacy but know that this will result in more entities (and it will be the more powerful ones first, BigCo, city governments, etc) thumbing their nose at the state and engaging in short sighted behavior. If CA isn't gonna honor it's promises then anyone who deals with CA has less incentive to enter into agreements with the state or honor existing ones. In that future if CA grants someone permission to take X of Y resource they might just take 5X on the basis that CA won't honor their end so why should they. Any lasting solution needs to be constructed on a solid legal foundation.
  - KSteffensen 4y ago
    The solid legal foundation needs to take physical reality into account. Sure, if previous legal agreements did not account for reality, somebody needs to own up to that, cancel the previous agreements openly while sucking up the relevant penalties. However, if this doesn't happen, physical reality will eventually assert itself over legal agreements.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Yes and those issues will have to be worked out in the state legislature. This is a complex political process with many conflicting stakeholders. Regardless of the physical reality, the political reality will take time to change. We don't live in a dictatorship where policies can change on a whim.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Nothing is at odds with physics. The conflict is between people that own something and people that want that thing. Nothing in physics is stopping them from purchasing that thing from the people that have it.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    > Try and think a couple steps ahead. Right back atcha. > undermine state legitimacy You know what would undermine state legitimacy? Lobbying some old verbiage into an excuse to make city-dwellers baghold for Big Agriculture. > incentive Farmers need incentive to not grow crops in a desert. > Any lasting solution needs to be constructed on a solid legal foundation. Yes. Not only should we strike down this absurd "promise," we should put in place a mechanism to make sure nonphysical open-ended promises don't ever get made again.
cataphract 4y ago
If the circumstances significantly changed in an unforeseen way since farmers were given water rights, many in 1800s, the State should be able to curtail those rights in the public interest. I do agree that there must be proportionality and due process, of course.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Stripping rights isn't due process. Buying rights is.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    Entitlement knows no bounds.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      agreed.

jjoonathan 4y ago

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Yes it is. Try and think a couple steps ahead. The system we live under only works because people believe in it and more or less voluntarily play by the rules. Feel free to undermine state legitimacy but know that this will result in more entities (and it will be the more powerful ones first, BigCo, city governments, etc) thumbing their nose at the state and engaging in short sighted behavior. If CA isn't gonna honor it's promises then anyone who deals with CA has less incentive to enter into agreements with the state or honor existing ones. In that future if CA grants someone permission to take X of Y resource they might just take 5X on the basis that CA won't honor their end so why should they. Any lasting solution needs to be constructed on a solid legal foundation.
- KSteffensen 4y ago
  The solid legal foundation needs to take physical reality into account. Sure, if previous legal agreements did not account for reality, somebody needs to own up to that, cancel the previous agreements openly while sucking up the relevant penalties. However, if this doesn't happen, physical reality will eventually assert itself over legal agreements.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Yes and those issues will have to be worked out in the state legislature. This is a complex political process with many conflicting stakeholders. Regardless of the physical reality, the political reality will take time to change. We don't live in a dictatorship where policies can change on a whim.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Nothing is at odds with physics. The conflict is between people that own something and people that want that thing. Nothing in physics is stopping them from purchasing that thing from the people that have it.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  > Try and think a couple steps ahead. Right back atcha. > undermine state legitimacy You know what would undermine state legitimacy? Lobbying some old verbiage into an excuse to make city-dwellers baghold for Big Agriculture. > incentive Farmers need incentive to not grow crops in a desert. > Any lasting solution needs to be constructed on a solid legal foundation. Yes. Not only should we strike down this absurd "promise," we should put in place a mechanism to make sure nonphysical open-ended promises don't ever get made again.

cataphract 4y ago

If the circumstances significantly changed in an unforeseen way since farmers were given water rights, many in 1800s, the State should be able to curtail those rights in the public interest. I do agree that there must be proportionality and due process, of course.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Stripping rights isn't due process. Buying rights is.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  Entitlement knows no bounds.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    agreed.