4 ms·

> 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

> 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
  They barely pay for it. Most of the people holding these rights pay an absurd fraction of what a city-dweller would pay for the same amount. That's the only reason it's profitable for the farmer.
  - lazide 4y ago
    They use different water systems. There is no single ‘water system’ or water source in the state. A senior rights holder has rights on a specific source of water. Water itself is ‘free’ until there is no more - minus the infrastructure costs to get it where you want of course, which can be zero to insanely expensive depending on the source of water. City dwellers are paying for the infrastructure to get clean, drinkable water to their doorstep at precise pressures 24/7 + any payments to water source rights owners. Farmers are paying for bulk delivery of massive quantities of non-potable/drinkable water to their fields during specific times of the year. These are not comparable things at all.
    - arbitrary_name 4y ago
      The water that agriculture requires is transported from government reservoirs, through government channels and canals, using government pumps. We as a society are paying for it, they get it far cheaper than cost. They are very comparable: both are water, being provided from a very finite source.
      - lazide 4y ago
        It usually is not, depending on what you mean by ‘government’. Even some of the large metropolises don’t get much water from state sources - San Francisco and the Bay Area for instance is almost exclusively using Water sources it purchased a long time ago. It’s why most of the hills east of Milpitas are private property of San Francisco Water, for instance. Most of the water that feeds LA, the city itself bought control over (and quite controversially so). Often it is pumped from private wells on private land. Often when it isn’t, it is part of large regional co-operatives of farmers, who buy land and then sink wells under it for water. The rare times that isn’t the case, the ‘government’ is the local county water control board, not the state or feds. The rate times THAT isn’t the case, it’s often overflow from flood control, or part of outflows from reservoirs built for flood control - where the water HAS to be let out or there will be flooding, depending on the season. I’ve lived in California my entire life, and I’ve only gotten water from anything state owned on very, very rare occasions (aqueduct) and it’s terrible.

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
They barely pay for it. Most of the people holding these rights pay an absurd fraction of what a city-dweller would pay for the same amount. That's the only reason it's profitable for the farmer.
- lazide 4y ago
  They use different water systems. There is no single ‘water system’ or water source in the state. A senior rights holder has rights on a specific source of water. Water itself is ‘free’ until there is no more - minus the infrastructure costs to get it where you want of course, which can be zero to insanely expensive depending on the source of water. City dwellers are paying for the infrastructure to get clean, drinkable water to their doorstep at precise pressures 24/7 + any payments to water source rights owners. Farmers are paying for bulk delivery of massive quantities of non-potable/drinkable water to their fields during specific times of the year. These are not comparable things at all.
  - arbitrary_name 4y ago
    The water that agriculture requires is transported from government reservoirs, through government channels and canals, using government pumps. We as a society are paying for it, they get it far cheaper than cost. They are very comparable: both are water, being provided from a very finite source.
    - lazide 4y ago
      It usually is not, depending on what you mean by ‘government’. Even some of the large metropolises don’t get much water from state sources - San Francisco and the Bay Area for instance is almost exclusively using Water sources it purchased a long time ago. It’s why most of the hills east of Milpitas are private property of San Francisco Water, for instance. Most of the water that feeds LA, the city itself bought control over (and quite controversially so). Often it is pumped from private wells on private land. Often when it isn’t, it is part of large regional co-operatives of farmers, who buy land and then sink wells under it for water. The rare times that isn’t the case, the ‘government’ is the local county water control board, not the state or feds. The rate times THAT isn’t the case, it’s often overflow from flood control, or part of outflows from reservoirs built for flood control - where the water HAS to be let out or there will be flooding, depending on the season. I’ve lived in California my entire life, and I’ve only gotten water from anything state owned on very, very rare occasions (aqueduct) and it’s terrible.