3 ms·

The water is owned by the farmers, not by California. Probably the state should eminent domain it, but I have no idea what it would cost to do so.

ncmncm 4y ago
Treating water allocation as if it were property, which it manifestly is not, leads to what would charitably be described as neurotic behavior. We have no need to continue that. Outlawing alfalfa growth in California from allocated water would not conflict with anybody's "rights". They can grow something else there that uses less water. Or (and this is something being done, in the Sacramento River delta) flood the land and collect carbon credits for sinking swamp vegetation. Much of the farmland in the Sacramento River delta is well below river and, indeed, sea level, some over 20 feet below, behind dikes (called there "levees") which threaten to collapse in the next big earthquake, pulling in a toxic load of salt water from the bay. (This has happened more than once; the dikes are not in better shape today.) Flooding fields gradually is hoped to lead to a sustainable future for the river. Erstwhile farmers could also float solar panels and collect more revenue. Raise freshwater fish and shrimp, besides. California agriculture north of Bakersfield does not use up quite so much water as allocation seems to indicate; the water evaporates and is blown to the Sierra Nevada mountains where much of it precipitates, and ends up in rivers again.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> The water is owned by the farmers, not by California if there is no rain, they have no property. the idea that you can own something beyong laws of physics is amazing. it's like owning thoughts and ideas
amanaplanacanal 4y ago
I can't tell if the downvotes mean that I'm wrong about this, and the state could theoretically reallocate that water, or that I'm right but people think it should work differently. Are there any experts on how this works in California that could weigh in here?
- jessaustin 4y ago
  Every time this comes up, the simple straightforward actually-legal solution of "let's pay the farmers to use less water" gets downvoted to oblivion. I conclude that many Californians on HN simply dislike farmers and don't want them to prosper. The other possibility, that there isn't actually a water shortage in California so there's no need to waste money managing water, seems to contradict everything I've ever learned on this topic from the commercial news media.

ncmncm 4y ago

Treating water allocation as if it were property, which it manifestly is not, leads to what would charitably be described as neurotic behavior. We have no need to continue that. Outlawing alfalfa growth in California from allocated water would not conflict with anybody's "rights". They can grow something else there that uses less water. Or (and this is something being done, in the Sacramento River delta) flood the land and collect carbon credits for sinking swamp vegetation. Much of the farmland in the Sacramento River delta is well below river and, indeed, sea level, some over 20 feet below, behind dikes (called there "levees") which threaten to collapse in the next big earthquake, pulling in a toxic load of salt water from the bay. (This has happened more than once; the dikes are not in better shape today.) Flooding fields gradually is hoped to lead to a sustainable future for the river. Erstwhile farmers could also float solar panels and collect more revenue. Raise freshwater fish and shrimp, besides. California agriculture north of Bakersfield does not use up quite so much water as allocation seems to indicate; the water evaporates and is blown to the Sierra Nevada mountains where much of it precipitates, and ends up in rivers again.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> The water is owned by the farmers, not by California if there is no rain, they have no property. the idea that you can own something beyong laws of physics is amazing. it's like owning thoughts and ideas

amanaplanacanal 4y ago

I can't tell if the downvotes mean that I'm wrong about this, and the state could theoretically reallocate that water, or that I'm right but people think it should work differently. Are there any experts on how this works in California that could weigh in here?

jessaustin 4y ago
Every time this comes up, the simple straightforward actually-legal solution of "let's pay the farmers to use less water" gets downvoted to oblivion. I conclude that many Californians on HN simply dislike farmers and don't want them to prosper. The other possibility, that there isn't actually a water shortage in California so there's no need to waste money managing water, seems to contradict everything I've ever learned on this topic from the commercial news media.