5 ms·

I'm guessing this is the source for that: https://youtu.be/jtxew5XUVbQ?t=512 https://youtu.be/jtxew5XUVbQ?t=512

HWR_14 4y ago
I mean, that is a source, but it was pretty well reported before that. Although I thought they assigned too many water rights because they measured in a period of flooding. John Oliver is the first time I heard that they knew it was a lie at the time.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Too many rights doesn't really capture the phenomenon and issue. Water rights were never assigned in the west on a need basis. They were assigned to keep track of who who owns what, like land or mineral rights. In that sense, they work just fine, we know and have a framework for determining who owns the water, and who gets nothing when there isn't enough. The issue is when people want water and don't like the answer of buy someone's rights.
  - katbyte 4y ago
    isn't the issue that there is let’s say 40,000 units of water rights for 20,000 units of actual water, so there is no possible way for everyone to get their “water rights” and all the water in the river and ground will be used to the detriment of the environment and ability for the aquifers to supply it. Works for a while and then now all the waters gone, ooops.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Water rights also come with priority. When there aren't enough units, they describe who gets what is available and who goes without. Historically, non replenishable Groundwater has been treated like oil or mineral deposits, if you own it, you can use it up.
      - katbyte 4y ago
        Thus leading to the over use of surface water, depletion of ground water, extinctions, and environmental damage we are seeing right now..
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        If you can reach groundwater (and multiple people can) it's a race to use it up before someone else does.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        This isn't exactly correct. IF someone has higher priority and cant get water, they can sue other users to make them stop.
        HWR_14 4y ago
        Groundwater doesn't follow the same priority system (in most states). Nor is there anything stopping people in border areas from taking all the water in another state's aquifer.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I'm most familiar with California which absolutely has Groundwater priority. Interstate groundwater conflicts come up less frequently but there is a framework for deciding them. You may be interested in this recent Supreme Court ruling on exactly that subject. https://globalwaterforum.org/2021/12/21/u-s-supreme-court-issues-decision-in-first-ever-dispute-over-interstate-groundwater-implications-for-international-law/ https://globalwaterforum.org/2021/12/21/u-s-supreme-court-is...
        katbyte 4y ago
        Except how do you know who’s using your ground water? It could be someone 20k away creating a depression in the water table with a deeper well so it drops just below yours. It’s far more complex then you seem to think it is
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    > know and have a framework for determining who owns the water, and who gets nothing when there isn't enough. But there's never enough. It's oversold. Much like an airplane gets oversold. Only in this case 16% more water was assigned an owner than exists in an average year. > don't like the answer of buy someone's rights. That's not always something you can do because water rights are a state matter. Some water rights transfer with the real estate it is attached to. Some are locked into a specific owner and are non-transferable. Even if they can be transferred, because too many water rights were assigned, if you move to them to a different location the river might run dry before it gets to you.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Like I said above, there is no such thing as too many water rights. Water rights come with priority. When there aren't enough units, they describe who gets what is available and who goes without. It's not oversold, some rights just have very low priority and value. It is like paying to be 100th on your airplane wait list. I have never heard of a water right tied to a person, and not a location and source. They aren't transferable like that. You may be thinking of water contracts, which are different. Essentially a contractual agreement between a private party and a water supply organization like the California state water project
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        The interstate water rights were definitely assigned to the various states, and to my knowledge don't follow any priority system other than "further upstream", and assigned too much water to the states.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Im confused how this relates. You acknowledge there is a priority system. What does "too much water assigned to the states" mean to you? too much for what purpose? Like I said, there is a system to determine who gets priority and who goes without.
apcragg 4y ago
Marc Reisner's book Cadillac Desert talked about this as far back as 1986.

I mean, that is a source, but it was pretty well reported before that. Although I thought they assigned too many water rights because they measured in a period of flooding. John Oliver is the first time I heard that they knew it was a lie at the time.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Too many rights doesn't really capture the phenomenon and issue. Water rights were never assigned in the west on a need basis. They were assigned to keep track of who who owns what, like land or mineral rights. In that sense, they work just fine, we know and have a framework for determining who owns the water, and who gets nothing when there isn't enough. The issue is when people want water and don't like the answer of buy someone's rights.
- katbyte 4y ago
  isn't the issue that there is let’s say 40,000 units of water rights for 20,000 units of actual water, so there is no possible way for everyone to get their “water rights” and all the water in the river and ground will be used to the detriment of the environment and ability for the aquifers to supply it. Works for a while and then now all the waters gone, ooops.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Water rights also come with priority. When there aren't enough units, they describe who gets what is available and who goes without. Historically, non replenishable Groundwater has been treated like oil or mineral deposits, if you own it, you can use it up.
    - katbyte 4y ago
      Thus leading to the over use of surface water, depletion of ground water, extinctions, and environmental damage we are seeing right now..
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      If you can reach groundwater (and multiple people can) it's a race to use it up before someone else does.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        This isn't exactly correct. IF someone has higher priority and cant get water, they can sue other users to make them stop.
        HWR_14 4y ago
        Groundwater doesn't follow the same priority system (in most states). Nor is there anything stopping people in border areas from taking all the water in another state's aquifer.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I'm most familiar with California which absolutely has Groundwater priority. Interstate groundwater conflicts come up less frequently but there is a framework for deciding them. You may be interested in this recent Supreme Court ruling on exactly that subject. https://globalwaterforum.org/2021/12/21/u-s-supreme-court-issues-decision-in-first-ever-dispute-over-interstate-groundwater-implications-for-international-law/ https://globalwaterforum.org/2021/12/21/u-s-supreme-court-is...
        katbyte 4y ago
        Except how do you know who’s using your ground water? It could be someone 20k away creating a depression in the water table with a deeper well so it drops just below yours. It’s far more complex then you seem to think it is
- HWR_14 4y ago
  > know and have a framework for determining who owns the water, and who gets nothing when there isn't enough. But there's never enough. It's oversold. Much like an airplane gets oversold. Only in this case 16% more water was assigned an owner than exists in an average year. > don't like the answer of buy someone's rights. That's not always something you can do because water rights are a state matter. Some water rights transfer with the real estate it is attached to. Some are locked into a specific owner and are non-transferable. Even if they can be transferred, because too many water rights were assigned, if you move to them to a different location the river might run dry before it gets to you.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Like I said above, there is no such thing as too many water rights. Water rights come with priority. When there aren't enough units, they describe who gets what is available and who goes without. It's not oversold, some rights just have very low priority and value. It is like paying to be 100th on your airplane wait list. I have never heard of a water right tied to a person, and not a location and source. They aren't transferable like that. You may be thinking of water contracts, which are different. Essentially a contractual agreement between a private party and a water supply organization like the California state water project
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      The interstate water rights were definitely assigned to the various states, and to my knowledge don't follow any priority system other than "further upstream", and assigned too much water to the states.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Im confused how this relates. You acknowledge there is a priority system. What does "too much water assigned to the states" mean to you? too much for what purpose? Like I said, there is a system to determine who gets priority and who goes without.

apcragg 4y ago

Marc Reisner's book Cadillac Desert talked about this as far back as 1986.