6 ms·

> What do you expect the Feds to do about the weather? Intervene and rebalance the water markets, which are currently unsustainable based on bad decades-old sc

> What do you expect the Feds to do about the weather? Intervene and rebalance the water markets, which are currently unsustainable based on bad decades-old science.

enraged_camel 4y ago
Water markets are broken primarily because of water rights, some of which were allocated centuries ago via local and regional contracts. They are nearly impossible to untangle, and state governments are required by law to honor them.
- WoahNoun 4y ago
  Congress can use eminent domain to untangle them.
  - bogomipz 4y ago
    Can you walk me through how the Federal Government could use eminent domain to untangle the water rights? What exactly is the Government going to expropriate as part of eminent domain? There are seven states that depend on the water from the Colorado River.
    - lovich 4y ago
      > Can you walk me through how the Federal Government could use eminent domain to untangle the water rights? Eminent domaining the water? The federal government at the highest level(SCOTUS) have no problem using eminent domain for things as frivolous as an unfinanced mall with no strings attached for the _private_ developer. They certainly wouldn't pause to eminent domain this if they cared. Unfortunately these are regions of the country that are populated by large groups of people who continually elect local politicians who will blame any convenient boogeyman on their problems. Look at this in 2021 their AG sued the Biden government over not doing enough to stop pollution causing climate change because his administration didn’t crack down on _immigrants_[1]. What exactly is political leadership supposed to do here? Kowtow to the demands that will cost money and absolutely not solve the problem? Or ignore it until the people living with the issue decide to accept that it’s real rather than blaming whatever let’s them continue their lifestyle without any change? [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huffpost.com/entry/arizona-climate-lawsuit_n_60897a42e4b0b9042d8d6ae5/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huffpost.com/entry/arizona-...
      - bogomipz 4y ago
        You didn't actually answer my question. It sounds like you might be confused on what eminent domain is. Eminent domain provides the Federal government with the power to take private property and convert it into public use. There is no single piece of land here. This is not only not land it's literally water that flows across the land. Further it's not private property. The Colorado River basin covers 250,000 square is almost 1,400 miles long. Not only do seven states depend on it but Mexico also has rights to it under The Mexican Water Treaty of 1944. To compare it to appropriating land for a mall is absurd.
        lovich 4y ago
        Then eminent domain multiple pieces of land. You’re ignoring that they have the power to do so, they just don’t have the will. We have built mega projects before and taken land for it. This would be no different
        bogomipz 4y ago
        I'm not ignoring anything. Eminent domain is not at all applicable here. You seem to be ignoring that eminent domain applies to private land in order to make it available for public use. The land involved is already public, it belongs to the states. Honestly you really don't seem to have much of any meaningful argument or explanation other than repeatedly using the phrase "eminent domain" incorrectly.
        lovich 4y ago
        That is incorrect. The federal government can exercise eminent domain against the states, and that is not an old idea. I found it last referenced in a 2021 opinion authored by Roberts[1] The pertinent text is >Early cases also reflected the understanding that state property was not immune from the exercise of delegated federal eminent domain power. See Stockton v. Baltimore & N. Y. R. Co., 32 F. 9 (Bradley, Cir. J.). The contrary position—that a federal delegatee could not condemn a State’s land without the State’s consent—would give rise to the “dilemma of requiring the consent of the state” in virtually every infrastructure project authorized by the Federal Government. It literally calls out that major infrastructure projects would not have been feasible without this power [1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-1039 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-1039
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Water rights were not allocated centuries ago. All water managements systems (more or less) in place when the US took control of the southwest were overridden and replaced by US-style private property rights, a totally different system than exists east of the 100th parallel/the Mississippi. Consequently, they date back at most 1.5 centuries, and in general, less than that.
  - oasisbob 4y ago
    > 100th parallel/the Mississippi. Small point, but longitudinal lines aren't typically called parallels because they're not parallel to each other.
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      More specifically: there are parallels of lattitude and meridians of longitude. https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-parallels-and-vs-meridians/ https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-paralle... Meridian from "of the noon time, midday": https://www.etymonline.com/word/meridian https://www.etymonline.com/word/meridian As a mnemonic, the lines of longitude are all equally long (running from pole to pole).
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  The main agreement affecting the SW today is the Colorado River Compact, which dates back only the 1930s/40s. It is far, far from ancient history, and was demonstrably created in a state of willful ignorance of actual precipitation patterns in the region.
c1sc0 4y ago
Geoengineering. I know that if they won’t do it someone will. Iron fertilization in particular looks cheap enough to try at the non-state level.
- DyslexicAtheist 4y ago
  > Geoengineering. I know that if they won’t do it someone will. that's true for any terrible idea. in many way's terrible ideas is how humanity progresses. but it seems bad to double down on the same old ("more engineering") to solve the problem. Guess the alternative "spend less" is very unpopular because it's something anyone can do but it actually hurts.
  - c1sc0 4y ago
    I'm all in favor of "spend less / consume less / grow less / be more sustainable" ... trouble is: seems like most decision makers are not ... wildcat geoengineering is no longer a matter of if, but when.
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  Do you even know what you're talking about? Are you referring to iron rust being randomly distributed in the ocean or along the coast? All that will do is cause an algal bloom and die off, killing off even more of the depleted marine life. That won't sequester any carbon, at best 0.05% if you do it in a way that forms the sediment. Otherwise, you're just killing what little marine life is left for giggles.

> What do you expect the Feds to do about the weather? Intervene and rebalance the water markets, which are currently unsustainable based on bad decades-old science.

enraged_camel 4y ago

Water markets are broken primarily because of water rights, some of which were allocated centuries ago via local and regional contracts. They are nearly impossible to untangle, and state governments are required by law to honor them.

WoahNoun 4y ago
Congress can use eminent domain to untangle them.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  Can you walk me through how the Federal Government could use eminent domain to untangle the water rights? What exactly is the Government going to expropriate as part of eminent domain? There are seven states that depend on the water from the Colorado River.
  - lovich 4y ago
    > Can you walk me through how the Federal Government could use eminent domain to untangle the water rights? Eminent domaining the water? The federal government at the highest level(SCOTUS) have no problem using eminent domain for things as frivolous as an unfinanced mall with no strings attached for the _private_ developer. They certainly wouldn't pause to eminent domain this if they cared. Unfortunately these are regions of the country that are populated by large groups of people who continually elect local politicians who will blame any convenient boogeyman on their problems. Look at this in 2021 their AG sued the Biden government over not doing enough to stop pollution causing climate change because his administration didn’t crack down on _immigrants_[1]. What exactly is political leadership supposed to do here? Kowtow to the demands that will cost money and absolutely not solve the problem? Or ignore it until the people living with the issue decide to accept that it’s real rather than blaming whatever let’s them continue their lifestyle without any change? [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huffpost.com/entry/arizona-climate-lawsuit_n_60897a42e4b0b9042d8d6ae5/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huffpost.com/entry/arizona-...
    - bogomipz 4y ago
      You didn't actually answer my question. It sounds like you might be confused on what eminent domain is. Eminent domain provides the Federal government with the power to take private property and convert it into public use. There is no single piece of land here. This is not only not land it's literally water that flows across the land. Further it's not private property. The Colorado River basin covers 250,000 square is almost 1,400 miles long. Not only do seven states depend on it but Mexico also has rights to it under The Mexican Water Treaty of 1944. To compare it to appropriating land for a mall is absurd.
      - lovich 4y ago
        Then eminent domain multiple pieces of land. You’re ignoring that they have the power to do so, they just don’t have the will. We have built mega projects before and taken land for it. This would be no different
        bogomipz 4y ago
        I'm not ignoring anything. Eminent domain is not at all applicable here. You seem to be ignoring that eminent domain applies to private land in order to make it available for public use. The land involved is already public, it belongs to the states. Honestly you really don't seem to have much of any meaningful argument or explanation other than repeatedly using the phrase "eminent domain" incorrectly.
        lovich 4y ago
        That is incorrect. The federal government can exercise eminent domain against the states, and that is not an old idea. I found it last referenced in a 2021 opinion authored by Roberts[1] The pertinent text is >Early cases also reflected the understanding that state property was not immune from the exercise of delegated federal eminent domain power. See Stockton v. Baltimore & N. Y. R. Co., 32 F. 9 (Bradley, Cir. J.). The contrary position—that a federal delegatee could not condemn a State’s land without the State’s consent—would give rise to the “dilemma of requiring the consent of the state” in virtually every infrastructure project authorized by the Federal Government. It literally calls out that major infrastructure projects would not have been feasible without this power [1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-1039 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-1039
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Water rights were not allocated centuries ago. All water managements systems (more or less) in place when the US took control of the southwest were overridden and replaced by US-style private property rights, a totally different system than exists east of the 100th parallel/the Mississippi. Consequently, they date back at most 1.5 centuries, and in general, less than that.
- oasisbob 4y ago
  > 100th parallel/the Mississippi. Small point, but longitudinal lines aren't typically called parallels because they're not parallel to each other.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    More specifically: there are parallels of lattitude and meridians of longitude. https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-parallels-and-vs-meridians/ https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-paralle... Meridian from "of the noon time, midday": https://www.etymonline.com/word/meridian https://www.etymonline.com/word/meridian As a mnemonic, the lines of longitude are all equally long (running from pole to pole).
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
The main agreement affecting the SW today is the Colorado River Compact, which dates back only the 1930s/40s. It is far, far from ancient history, and was demonstrably created in a state of willful ignorance of actual precipitation patterns in the region.

c1sc0 4y ago

Geoengineering. I know that if they won’t do it someone will. Iron fertilization in particular looks cheap enough to try at the non-state level.

DyslexicAtheist 4y ago
> Geoengineering. I know that if they won’t do it someone will. that's true for any terrible idea. in many way's terrible ideas is how humanity progresses. but it seems bad to double down on the same old ("more engineering") to solve the problem. Guess the alternative "spend less" is very unpopular because it's something anyone can do but it actually hurts.
- c1sc0 4y ago
  I'm all in favor of "spend less / consume less / grow less / be more sustainable" ... trouble is: seems like most decision makers are not ... wildcat geoengineering is no longer a matter of if, but when.
formerkrogemp 4y ago
Do you even know what you're talking about? Are you referring to iron rust being randomly distributed in the ocean or along the coast? All that will do is cause an algal bloom and die off, killing off even more of the depleted marine life. That won't sequester any carbon, at best 0.05% if you do it in a way that forms the sediment. Otherwise, you're just killing what little marine life is left for giggles.