4 ms·
> 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 lik
by 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 agoLike 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 agoThe 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 agoIm 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.
- HWR_14 4y agoEach state has water rights assigned by a priority system within the state. So you know your priority level within Arizona. Arizona, Nevada, Utah and others split up the Colorado river between them. That split does not use a priority system. So the person in Arizona in a bad year with a high priority is still behind people in other states with a lower priority, as long as that state doesn't use more than their water. And water rights cannot transfer between states.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoIm not sure which of my points you are addressing. Water rights are state specific, so as you say, individuals know there priority within the state. Most interstate conflicts are between the states as entities, and have a different means of reconciliation: equitable apportionment adjudicated by the supreme court when necessary. prior utilization plays a large part in equitable apportionment, but is not the only consideration. If one state uses more than their water, they can be sued for damages by the harmed state. Im still not sure how this relates to your original claim that there are too many water rights, or what you mean by "too many". too many for what? too many for water to be left for the environment? too many to count on your fingers and toes?
- HWR_14 4y agoThe states have a 100 year old interstate compact dictating water distribution. It doesn't get readjusted every year or anything similar