6 ms·
Politics, those who own much of the political capital and connections are farmers or have farming interests.
by jorblumesea 4y ago
Politics, those who own much of the political capital and connections are farmers or have farming interests.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI strongly disagree. In the West, the urbanized population generally have the political power, but the law happens to be on the side of the farmers. Most of the difficulty we see is the conflict between these two facts.
- ejb999 4y agocorrect. The law is on the farmers side, water rights that were negotiated over 100 years ago can't just be canceled because of a current need - only way out is likely to use taxpayer money to buy back those rights from farmers that are willing to sell, but my guess is it won't be cheap.
- masklinn 4y ago> water rights that were negotiated over 100 years ago can't just be canceled because of a current need They absolutely can, but the will is completely absent.
- ejb999 4y agowhat is the legal mechanism for taking someone's properties (in this case water rights) without compensation?
- tremon 4y agoAsset forfeiture.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoDoes not exist in the US outside of the criminal context
- YarickR2 4y agoOh come on, Russian "oligarchs" have their property seized without so much as a trial or any kind of a criminal charge thrown to them
- s1artibartfast 4y agonot US citizens
- tremon 4y agoSo it does exist in the US, but US citizens are exempted?
- terr-dav 4y agoCops don't need a criminal conviction to conduct civil asset forfeiture. They don't even need to arrest someone. They just have to claim that the property itself is suspected of being involved in a crime. Have a lot of cash on you? Cops can steal it without a warrant :)
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI am aware and think it is a travesty. It is however within the criminal context, with at least the thin pretext if criminal wrongdoing. This is a far cry from the idea that the government can simply take what they want because they want it. The idea that politicians can (or should) just make a law dissolving property rights and take whatever water or land they want without compensation is misguided.
- terr-dav 4y ago
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI agree that that's the only long-term vible solution. Some states like California are trying to work around buying the rights by simply making it illegal for some people to exercise their water rights but not others. I don't think this will work out in the long run and they will eventually be forced to come to the table with cash offers by the courts
- jorblumesea 4y agoIn Utah? Nah, farmers own the water rights, the land, and have really strong interests in power to support them.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago90+% of the population in Utah is urban. The idea that the <10% of voters run the show is absurd. Owning the water rights and the land are separate issues from political influence. That is a legal matter, not political.
- gremlinsinc 4y agoThe governor is one of (if not) the biggest alfalfa farmers, do you think he's going to cut off his own arm to save utah, hell no!
- ejb999 4y agoCorrect - its not that farmers have outsized voting influence - they don't - what they do have is contracts and rights that can't just be taken away without compensation. The longer states wait to buy back those water rights, the more expensive it is going to be.
- NorthOf33rd 4y agoRural voters absolutely do run the show though. SLC has approximately no power in the state legislature. https://www.zipdatamaps.com/politics/state-level/districts/map-of-utah-state-house-of-representative-districts https://www.zipdatamaps.com/politics/state-level/districts/m...
- s1artibartfast 4y agoNot true. Utah house and senate districts and seats are allocated based on population. It is not like the Federal senate where each state gets fixed representatives, independent of population. For example, Salt Lake country has 12/29 senate representatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_State_Legislative_districts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_State_Legislative_distric...
- terr-dav 4y agoI also strongly disagree with this. In most places, the wealthy have the political power. The power in voting is diluted significantly when the choices are gate-kept by the wealthy.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoIn California least, the wealthy and the political power is on the side of the environmental movement. The Sierra Club and other groups essentially run the political process when it comes to natural resource decisions. The government usually has to pay them off for their buy-in for Big Ticket decisions with taxpayer money