3 ms·

Water rights are such a sticky subject and require a comprehensive overhaul, as is I fear there is no 'simple' way to go about pricing the use under the current

by Arrath 4y ago

Water rights are such a sticky subject and require a comprehensive overhaul, as is I fear there is no 'simple' way to go about pricing the use under the current framework. How many stakeholders are there with water rights to the Colorado river across the various states, and how many of them would need to buy-in to a pricing structure to get it adopted for all?

tru3_power 4y ago
Not only that- but the claims to the water extend beyond just US states. Mexico also has a guaranteed amount of water it has claim to from the Colorado river as well.
silexia 4y ago
Everyone simply should pay the same price per gallon. Businesses that have been abusing the system to get nearly free water will yell and scream, then go find something more productive to do. Water rights should not be rights and usually aren't rights... Water is owned by the state. The state should just be a utility that charges whatever price it desires to achieve the goals it has. If it wants to reduce water use, raise the price.
- mcny 4y ago
  Exactly. “first in time, first in right” is absolutely bonkers. It might make sense when the resource is limitless but not when we are running out of water. I think Colorado should just say screw it and keeps all the water for itself if California farmers continue to hold everyone hostage and demand a ransom.
Kon-Peki 4y ago
I wonder how long some of these water rights will survive. It seems that the Public Trust Doctrine may be used to cancel some (all?) long-standing rights. My thought is that water rights are a way to allocate water that doesn't yet exist in the Colorado River. Exercising these rights is a present and future danger to the public interest. It's not like mineral rights over "stuff" that has been in the ground for millions of years. > courts have used the public trust doctrine to minimize preexisting private property rights, as was done by the California Supreme Court in the famous Mono Lake case. In Mono Lake, the City of Los Angeles had secured water rights in Mono Lake's nonnavigable feeder streams under the state's prior appropriation water rights allocation system. However, the city's water diversions were adversely affecting the ecological integrity of this second largest California lake, revered as a “scenic and ecological treasure of national significance.” Faced with a classic confrontation between public and private water rights, the court held for the public, saying the public trust doctrine prevented any party from acquiring vested property rights to appropriate water in a manner injurious to the interests protected by the trust. http://www.velj.org/illinois-central-and-the-public-trust-doctrine-in-state-law.html http://www.velj.org/illinois-central-and-the-public-trust-do...

by Arrath 4y ago

tru3_power 4y ago

Not only that- but the claims to the water extend beyond just US states. Mexico also has a guaranteed amount of water it has claim to from the Colorado river as well.

silexia 4y ago

Everyone simply should pay the same price per gallon. Businesses that have been abusing the system to get nearly free water will yell and scream, then go find something more productive to do. Water rights should not be rights and usually aren't rights... Water is owned by the state. The state should just be a utility that charges whatever price it desires to achieve the goals it has. If it wants to reduce water use, raise the price.

mcny 4y ago
Exactly. “first in time, first in right” is absolutely bonkers. It might make sense when the resource is limitless but not when we are running out of water. I think Colorado should just say screw it and keeps all the water for itself if California farmers continue to hold everyone hostage and demand a ransom.

Kon-Peki 4y ago

I wonder how long some of these water rights will survive. It seems that the Public Trust Doctrine may be used to cancel some (all?) long-standing rights. My thought is that water rights are a way to allocate water that doesn't yet exist in the Colorado River. Exercising these rights is a present and future danger to the public interest. It's not like mineral rights over "stuff" that has been in the ground for millions of years. > courts have used the public trust doctrine to minimize preexisting private property rights, as was done by the California Supreme Court in the famous Mono Lake case. In Mono Lake, the City of Los Angeles had secured water rights in Mono Lake's nonnavigable feeder streams under the state's prior appropriation water rights allocation system. However, the city's water diversions were adversely affecting the ecological integrity of this second largest California lake, revered as a “scenic and ecological treasure of national significance.” Faced with a classic confrontation between public and private water rights, the court held for the public, saying the public trust doctrine prevented any party from acquiring vested property rights to appropriate water in a manner injurious to the interests protected by the trust. http://www.velj.org/illinois-central-and-the-public-trust-doctrine-in-state-law.html http://www.velj.org/illinois-central-and-the-public-trust-do...