5 ms·

Couldn't a ballot initiative do the trick? Has anyone been working on that?

nradov 4y ago
Yes a ballot initiative could do the trick. However it's hard to get urban voters to really appreciate the scale of the problem or what needs to be done. As long as their home water supply works and the bill isn't exorbitant then everything seems fine. Plus even with a ballot initiative to change the state Constitution, it would probably still be necessary to compensate current water rights holders at fair market value in order to seize or significantly curtail those rights. That type of eminent domain property seizure would be extraordinarily expensive, and so politicians hesitate to propose the tax increases and bond sales that would be necessary to fund it. But the current situation is unsustainable, so eventually we'll hit a true crisis where some large areas literally run out of water.
- b112 4y ago
  You don't take away rights, I don't even understand how you can tell someone they cannot access water. That said, instead you make it illegal in... say, 5 years, to irrigate certain crops without drip feeding. You also provide grants to convert people over to it, for free. Of course, it's still very expensive to maintain all that infra, it clogs, needs to be monitored, etc, but if the whole state has to do it, at least it's comparative competition.
  - Bud 4y ago
    What does "you don't take away rights" even mean? And why say such a thing? Of course rights can, and should, be taken away, if they don't make sense anymore. And these particular rights clearly don't make sense anymore.
    - inferiorhuman 4y ago
      The Colorado River is the source of water for a huge chunk of Southern California, six other states (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming), and Mexico. You're not going to change that unilaterally without causing an international incident.
      - arbitrary_name 4y ago
        Uhh, we just literally told Mexico they are getting less allocation then usual, because the states also had to take cuts to ensure minimum flows/levels. There is no international incident if everyone understands why the water is not there. And that is not a reason for the states to avoid collectively reconsidering what they are using the water for. We all need to look for ways to cut usage, including passing the true costs on to agriculture.
        inferiorhuman 4y ago
        Yeah, allocations were reduced after months of negotiations prompting a ton of teeth gnashing. Tijuana, for instance, gets almost all of its water from the Colorado River and is already subject to water outages. We all need to look for ways to cut usage, including passing the true costs on to agriculture. Agreed.
      - Bud 4y ago
        Several huge incidents are going to occur regardless of what we do. That is already baked-in to this situation. That includes fantasies about pretending that we can do nothing. Which we can't.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Legally speaking, water rights are one type of property rights. Those rights can be taken away, but the owners must be compensated at fair market value. The state government can't just arbitrarily seize private property.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    > You don't take away rights, I don't even understand how you can tell someone they cannot access water. What’s difficult to understand? Why should society be subsidizing these senior water rights holders? Nobody is saying they can’t access water, they should just fucking pay for it the same way the rest of the world does.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Society isn't paying subsidies to water rights holders. Water rights are property rights. Legally they can't just be taken away. You can complain that it shouldn't be that way, but that is the legal reality.
      - kortilla 4y ago
        > Legally they can't just be taken away. You can complain that it shouldn't be that way, but that is the legal reality. The constitution can just be changed. They are not inalienable
      - philsnow 4y ago
        > Water rights are property rights. Legally they can't just be taken away. That's precisely eminent domain, "the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation."
        nradov 4y ago
        Go back and read my comment above. I specifically described this in the context of eminent domain.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      They do pay for it. Their use of water is profitable, for them. Whether it is profitable for society as a whole is a different question.
      - arrosenberg 4y ago
  - LadyCailin 4y ago
    > I don't even understand how you can tell someone they cannot access water. “There’s no water left, you used it all.”

Yes a ballot initiative could do the trick. However it's hard to get urban voters to really appreciate the scale of the problem or what needs to be done. As long as their home water supply works and the bill isn't exorbitant then everything seems fine. Plus even with a ballot initiative to change the state Constitution, it would probably still be necessary to compensate current water rights holders at fair market value in order to seize or significantly curtail those rights. That type of eminent domain property seizure would be extraordinarily expensive, and so politicians hesitate to propose the tax increases and bond sales that would be necessary to fund it. But the current situation is unsustainable, so eventually we'll hit a true crisis where some large areas literally run out of water.

b112 4y ago
You don't take away rights, I don't even understand how you can tell someone they cannot access water. That said, instead you make it illegal in... say, 5 years, to irrigate certain crops without drip feeding. You also provide grants to convert people over to it, for free. Of course, it's still very expensive to maintain all that infra, it clogs, needs to be monitored, etc, but if the whole state has to do it, at least it's comparative competition.
- Bud 4y ago
  What does "you don't take away rights" even mean? And why say such a thing? Of course rights can, and should, be taken away, if they don't make sense anymore. And these particular rights clearly don't make sense anymore.
  - inferiorhuman 4y ago
    The Colorado River is the source of water for a huge chunk of Southern California, six other states (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming), and Mexico. You're not going to change that unilaterally without causing an international incident.
    - arbitrary_name 4y ago
      Uhh, we just literally told Mexico they are getting less allocation then usual, because the states also had to take cuts to ensure minimum flows/levels. There is no international incident if everyone understands why the water is not there. And that is not a reason for the states to avoid collectively reconsidering what they are using the water for. We all need to look for ways to cut usage, including passing the true costs on to agriculture.
      - inferiorhuman 4y ago
        Yeah, allocations were reduced after months of negotiations prompting a ton of teeth gnashing. Tijuana, for instance, gets almost all of its water from the Colorado River and is already subject to water outages. We all need to look for ways to cut usage, including passing the true costs on to agriculture. Agreed.
    - Bud 4y ago
      Several huge incidents are going to occur regardless of what we do. That is already baked-in to this situation. That includes fantasies about pretending that we can do nothing. Which we can't.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Legally speaking, water rights are one type of property rights. Those rights can be taken away, but the owners must be compensated at fair market value. The state government can't just arbitrarily seize private property.
- kortilla 4y ago
  > You don't take away rights, I don't even understand how you can tell someone they cannot access water. What’s difficult to understand? Why should society be subsidizing these senior water rights holders? Nobody is saying they can’t access water, they should just fucking pay for it the same way the rest of the world does.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Society isn't paying subsidies to water rights holders. Water rights are property rights. Legally they can't just be taken away. You can complain that it shouldn't be that way, but that is the legal reality.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      > Legally they can't just be taken away. You can complain that it shouldn't be that way, but that is the legal reality. The constitution can just be changed. They are not inalienable
    - philsnow 4y ago
      > Water rights are property rights. Legally they can't just be taken away. That's precisely eminent domain, "the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation."
      - nradov 4y ago
        Go back and read my comment above. I specifically described this in the context of eminent domain.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    They do pay for it. Their use of water is profitable, for them. Whether it is profitable for society as a whole is a different question.
    - arrosenberg 4y ago
- LadyCailin 4y ago
  > I don't even understand how you can tell someone they cannot access water. “There’s no water left, you used it all.”