6 ms·

> The simple solution > The obvious answer This community seems like its at its best when it expresses humble curiosity and its worst when it shuts the door on

> The simple solution > The obvious answer This community seems like its at its best when it expresses humble curiosity and its worst when it shuts the door on learning by oversimplifying deeply complex matters as though nobody else had the sense to look straight at them. Water rights carry a legacy of centuries of personal and political history and thousands of competing interests. The levers with which to control price and set incentives the way you suggest don’t exist. There are real problems looming, but there are no “simple solutions” or “obvious answers” being missed. Whatever comes will involve great compromise and very few will think it was the right solution. I guess maybe you’re just joining that chorus early.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
staticautomatic 4y ago
Notwithstanding the farm and ranch lobbies, what part of raising prices isn’t a simple solution?
- dendrite9 4y ago
  The question of who owns the water right is important. The doctrine for water usage is different in the western US and the eastern US. Some of this is due to geography, and some due to the history of settlement. Here are a few useful links that discuss the differences. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/overview/water-law/ https://nationalaglawcenter.org/overview/water-law/ https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2014/03/an-introduction-to-water-law/ https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2014/03/an-introduction-to-water-l... https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/whose-water-is-it-anyway.html https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/whose-water-is-it-...
  - ABeeSea 4y ago
    So change the laws.
    - swatcoder 4y ago
      I know you’re being earnest and understand the conviction behind what you’re saying, but I can’t help imagining that some of these comments are “false flag” posts by the NRA. Completely overhauling property rights for half of a continent doesn’t come without major resistance. We’re still recovering from the last that that was done. It’s just not as simple a problem as we’d all like it to be, and it’s not because this senator is in that rancher’s pocket.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        All you really need is a tax, and considering how much else can be taxed trying to complain about a water tax for bulk use just seems whiny.
    - jandrewrogers 4y ago
      Changing the law ignores the problem. This involves vast amounts of titled property with centuries of history. People respond very poorly to wholesale deprivation of property rights such that the political ramifications cannot be ignored, and the US Constitution puts strict limits on the nature of such deprivations. This is essentially in the same class of situation as the government deciding to nationalize everyone's private home to solve some Important Problem. There isn't a realistic version of the world where that is a politically viable solution and the costs would be intractably high.
    - zeroonetwothree 4y ago
      As we saw in Kelo, the government can easily take away private property for basically any reason.
    - dendrite9 4y ago
      And do what about the geography? Changing the laws is not something that just happens and solves everything. If we're fixing legal doctrines from westward expansion of the US there is a lot to fix. I'd propose taking back the patchworks of land gifted to the railroads, or at least forcibly consolidate them into contiguous blocks. Maybe those water rights should be given to the tribes who used to live in the watersheds. Let them set the prices.
googlryas 4y ago
What is so complex about eminent domain? Just force the sale of water rights back to the government for a fair price. It will sting a little bit, but sting far less than pretending like only 15% of the water in the western US actually exists.
- gedy 4y ago
  Politicians are afraid of getting voted out, and frankly many of their constituents prefer to ban this or that symbolic thing in residential usage that scratches their control freak itch.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Or, just allow farmers to sell their water to the highest bidder. The Coase theorem to the rescue.
  - sacrosancty 4y ago
    This is what I would expect to happen. Everyone wants the government to "simply" violate property rights and seize it but is there not a way for the market to sort itself out fairly? Are they forbidden from selling their water rights? Or is the water actually worth more to the farmers than the city residents so that the current situation is actually fine?
    - lovich 4y ago
      > Everyone wants the government to "simply" violate property rights... It's a lot simpler when you don't believe that water is something private individuals have a right to hoard. Imo, water is a natural resource we all have some minimum access to as humans, regardless of if someone wants to buy it up and sell at a higher price later
      - sacrosancty 4y ago
        It's not really natural though, is it? Regulated by the Hoover dam and supplying people living in deserts. Obviosuly people who choose to live in remote arid places don't automatically have the right to be provided with water by everybody else.
kortilla 4y ago
Water rights are at odds with what society needs now. There is nothing complex here. Make everyone pay equally for water and the problem goes away. The people that complain that it’s way more complex than that are the ones that don’t want to pay for water.
- swatcoder 4y ago
  Should someone be able to dig a well in their own land? Draw surface water from a river, stream, or creek that passes through it? Grow crops in their own flood plains, estuaries, marshes, ponds, and lakes? The water we’re talking about doesn’t come through a pipe with a meter, and the people who have access to water have practical influence over the use, routing, safety, and quality of that water even if you try to assert legal control over them.
  - rootw0rm 4y ago
    Where I grew up (near Camp Pendleton), we couldn't dig a well on our property. Nobody in the area owned the water rights on their land.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Should someone be able to dig a well in their own land? If that connects to a shared aquifer which can easily be depleted, then not without regulation. > Draw surface water from a river, stream, or creek that passes through it? I wouldn't expect to be allowed to reduce the flow of one of those, comparing how much enters and how much exits my land. > Grow crops in their own flood plains, estuaries, marshes, ponds, and lakes? That seems fine, probably.
  - formerkrogemp 4y ago
    You and what 1,200 ft deep well? The aquifers are so depleted the land is sinking. It's just gone, and the rain isn't replenishing it fast enough. The water we're talking about is already more deep and less frequent.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  The complexity is to find a way to do that politically. Lots of powerful interests benefitting from the current system. If you or I were Emperor, it would be easy. But the current US system is different.
stickfigure 4y ago
> Water rights carry a legacy of centuries of personal and political history and thousands of competing interests. So did slavery, and we managed to get rid of that. Doing the right thing is really not that complicated, it just requires political will.
- swatcoder 4y ago
  That may not be the example you want to use for something accomplished completely or without complication.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  >So did slavery, and we managed to get rid of that. ... with a civil war. Doing the right thing is often quite complicated, and comes with severe costs and injury to some party somewhere.
- COGlory 4y ago
  600,000 immediate American casualties (not to mention the slaves) is not a great example here, of something being "simple"
  - formerkrogemp 4y ago
    COVID killed over a million. The culpability for that isn't simple either.
    - COGlory 4y ago
      What does that have to do with this topic?
LanceH 4y ago
We can start by rolling back the modern entrenchments that have only made it worse. I would be absolutely shocked if this were only a 200 year old problem and there wasn't modern legislation basically gifting free water to special interests.
- jfoutz 4y ago
  I'm by no means an expert or a lawyer or someone you should listen to. But this may hint at the complexity. A lot of water rights come from Spanish land grants ~330 years ago. And those were guaranteed by treaty after the Mexican American war. So, the U.S. can do whatever it wants, but treaties are in this weird space below the constitution but above a simple bill through congress to become law. Water rights are generally old, old law and weird and complicated and special for each little town.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > treaties are in this weird space below the constitution but above a simple bill through congress to become law Treaties have the force of federal law [1]. Not more. Not less. California is bound by them. The Congress is not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
    - bombcar 4y ago
      And the final say rests with the man with the gun, so if necessary the laws will be changed. Since things haven't reached that level, it's likely the issue isn't super serious (yet).
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > things haven't reached that level, it's likely the issue isn't super serious (yet) This isn't some some weird theoretical aside. Congressional power to modify and break treaties was debated by the founders [1]. Treaties are laws, full stop. Congress breaking them has political consequences. But it's not illegal, and it's no different from amending an act a prior Congress passed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#Repeal_of_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#Repeal_of_treati...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

staticautomatic 4y ago

Notwithstanding the farm and ranch lobbies, what part of raising prices isn’t a simple solution?

dendrite9 4y ago
The question of who owns the water right is important. The doctrine for water usage is different in the western US and the eastern US. Some of this is due to geography, and some due to the history of settlement. Here are a few useful links that discuss the differences. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/overview/water-law/ https://nationalaglawcenter.org/overview/water-law/ https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2014/03/an-introduction-to-water-law/ https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2014/03/an-introduction-to-water-l... https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/whose-water-is-it-anyway.html https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/whose-water-is-it-...
- ABeeSea 4y ago
  So change the laws.
  - swatcoder 4y ago
    I know you’re being earnest and understand the conviction behind what you’re saying, but I can’t help imagining that some of these comments are “false flag” posts by the NRA. Completely overhauling property rights for half of a continent doesn’t come without major resistance. We’re still recovering from the last that that was done. It’s just not as simple a problem as we’d all like it to be, and it’s not because this senator is in that rancher’s pocket.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      All you really need is a tax, and considering how much else can be taxed trying to complain about a water tax for bulk use just seems whiny.
  - jandrewrogers 4y ago
    Changing the law ignores the problem. This involves vast amounts of titled property with centuries of history. People respond very poorly to wholesale deprivation of property rights such that the political ramifications cannot be ignored, and the US Constitution puts strict limits on the nature of such deprivations. This is essentially in the same class of situation as the government deciding to nationalize everyone's private home to solve some Important Problem. There isn't a realistic version of the world where that is a politically viable solution and the costs would be intractably high.
  - zeroonetwothree 4y ago
    As we saw in Kelo, the government can easily take away private property for basically any reason.
  - dendrite9 4y ago
    And do what about the geography? Changing the laws is not something that just happens and solves everything. If we're fixing legal doctrines from westward expansion of the US there is a lot to fix. I'd propose taking back the patchworks of land gifted to the railroads, or at least forcibly consolidate them into contiguous blocks. Maybe those water rights should be given to the tribes who used to live in the watersheds. Let them set the prices.

googlryas 4y ago

What is so complex about eminent domain? Just force the sale of water rights back to the government for a fair price. It will sting a little bit, but sting far less than pretending like only 15% of the water in the western US actually exists.

gedy 4y ago
Politicians are afraid of getting voted out, and frankly many of their constituents prefer to ban this or that symbolic thing in residential usage that scratches their control freak itch.
pfdietz 4y ago
Or, just allow farmers to sell their water to the highest bidder. The Coase theorem to the rescue.
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  This is what I would expect to happen. Everyone wants the government to "simply" violate property rights and seize it but is there not a way for the market to sort itself out fairly? Are they forbidden from selling their water rights? Or is the water actually worth more to the farmers than the city residents so that the current situation is actually fine?
  - lovich 4y ago
    > Everyone wants the government to "simply" violate property rights... It's a lot simpler when you don't believe that water is something private individuals have a right to hoard. Imo, water is a natural resource we all have some minimum access to as humans, regardless of if someone wants to buy it up and sell at a higher price later
    - sacrosancty 4y ago
      It's not really natural though, is it? Regulated by the Hoover dam and supplying people living in deserts. Obviosuly people who choose to live in remote arid places don't automatically have the right to be provided with water by everybody else.

kortilla 4y ago

Water rights are at odds with what society needs now. There is nothing complex here. Make everyone pay equally for water and the problem goes away. The people that complain that it’s way more complex than that are the ones that don’t want to pay for water.

swatcoder 4y ago
Should someone be able to dig a well in their own land? Draw surface water from a river, stream, or creek that passes through it? Grow crops in their own flood plains, estuaries, marshes, ponds, and lakes? The water we’re talking about doesn’t come through a pipe with a meter, and the people who have access to water have practical influence over the use, routing, safety, and quality of that water even if you try to assert legal control over them.
- rootw0rm 4y ago
  Where I grew up (near Camp Pendleton), we couldn't dig a well on our property. Nobody in the area owned the water rights on their land.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Should someone be able to dig a well in their own land? If that connects to a shared aquifer which can easily be depleted, then not without regulation. > Draw surface water from a river, stream, or creek that passes through it? I wouldn't expect to be allowed to reduce the flow of one of those, comparing how much enters and how much exits my land. > Grow crops in their own flood plains, estuaries, marshes, ponds, and lakes? That seems fine, probably.
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  You and what 1,200 ft deep well? The aquifers are so depleted the land is sinking. It's just gone, and the rain isn't replenishing it fast enough. The water we're talking about is already more deep and less frequent.
BurningFrog 4y ago
The complexity is to find a way to do that politically. Lots of powerful interests benefitting from the current system. If you or I were Emperor, it would be easy. But the current US system is different.

stickfigure 4y ago

> Water rights carry a legacy of centuries of personal and political history and thousands of competing interests. So did slavery, and we managed to get rid of that. Doing the right thing is really not that complicated, it just requires political will.

swatcoder 4y ago
That may not be the example you want to use for something accomplished completely or without complication.
remarkEon 4y ago
>So did slavery, and we managed to get rid of that. ... with a civil war. Doing the right thing is often quite complicated, and comes with severe costs and injury to some party somewhere.
COGlory 4y ago
600,000 immediate American casualties (not to mention the slaves) is not a great example here, of something being "simple"
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  COVID killed over a million. The culpability for that isn't simple either.
  - COGlory 4y ago
    What does that have to do with this topic?

LanceH 4y ago

We can start by rolling back the modern entrenchments that have only made it worse. I would be absolutely shocked if this were only a 200 year old problem and there wasn't modern legislation basically gifting free water to special interests.

jfoutz 4y ago
I'm by no means an expert or a lawyer or someone you should listen to. But this may hint at the complexity. A lot of water rights come from Spanish land grants ~330 years ago. And those were guaranteed by treaty after the Mexican American war. So, the U.S. can do whatever it wants, but treaties are in this weird space below the constitution but above a simple bill through congress to become law. Water rights are generally old, old law and weird and complicated and special for each little town.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > treaties are in this weird space below the constitution but above a simple bill through congress to become law Treaties have the force of federal law [1]. Not more. Not less. California is bound by them. The Congress is not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
  - bombcar 4y ago
    And the final say rests with the man with the gun, so if necessary the laws will be changed. Since things haven't reached that level, it's likely the issue isn't super serious (yet).
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > things haven't reached that level, it's likely the issue isn't super serious (yet) This isn't some some weird theoretical aside. Congressional power to modify and break treaties was debated by the founders [1]. Treaties are laws, full stop. Congress breaking them has political consequences. But it's not illegal, and it's no different from amending an act a prior Congress passed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#Repeal_of_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#Repeal_of_treati...