5 ms·

Why should water rights be indefinite? Seems like a bad deal for the state. Realistically they should be auctioned off each decade or come with heafty yearly li

Why should water rights be indefinite? Seems like a bad deal for the state. Realistically they should be auctioned off each decade or come with heafty yearly liscensing fees based off demand & supply.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I agree that maybe they should be. The question is how you go from the current state of affairs to this new paradigm. US law and rights prevents the government from simply coming in in taking property without compensation. This is the same reason that the government can't simply seize land, housing, or bank accounts of law abiding citizens to address various problems like homelessness.
- kortilla 4y ago
  The government absolutely can seize land for projects. Eminent domain.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Why should water rights be indefinite? Same reason property rights are.
- scarmig 4y ago
  It's a bit different, in that property rights are (at least in part) around to incentivize production of the property. Probably a better analogy is property rights in land.
  - SilasX 4y ago
    Well ... in order to carry this over to ordinary real property, and make the situation analogous to water rights, you'd have to tweak a few things. Imagine that, if you didn't allow randos to walk through a plot of land, then, eventually, the plot would become toxic and totally useless, with a value of zero. (i.e. what will happen with water rights if they keep drawing according to the assumptions that ground the law). This is a purely physical constraint. Imagine furthermore that (like normal), the property right entitles the owner to stop randos from walking through, but also, if they don't exercise that right, then title to that plot will revert to someone else (i.e. how use-it-or-lose-it provisions work in water rights here). In isolation, then, it's totally rational for the owner to keep randos from walking through, as that maximizes their ability to profit from the land -- even though over the long-term this destroys the total use value of the land. The fix, then, is to say, "okay, we won't revert title to someone else anymore if you let randos walk through. Also, you can sell that right." Then, the owner will sell rando-walking right, and the land won't become toxic. Win win all around. You can even pay the owner for the lost value from the transition, and still come out ahead.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Why exactly is the land becoming toxic in this scenario?
      - SilasX 4y ago
        Just an arbitrary constraint in the analog, corresponding to how continued water drawing can kill off aquifers.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        OK, I think I largely agree that the solution is to let owners sell walking rights. This is described in the article as leasing the water rights, and I think a solid part of the solution. The problem is who pays for the walking rights, and how much. If it is too low, the owner would rather use the water/land until it is depleted. This is further complicated by the fact that in Utah, much of the farming water from rain isn't being depleted, but rather, the lake is drying up. Someone upstream might say, I have a source of water good for the next 1000 years, and can earn $10/year. Why should I accept $5/year to send it down stream? Also, the article mentions that a major issue is trust, which cant be stated enough. If I destroy my business and a life long investment to accept $5/year, what protections do I have that the price wont go to $1/year, or $0? If the state makes a binding contract, can I even trust that? This lack of trust is based in history, as cities and states in the west frequently brake water contracts with farmers. Sometimes states end up having to pay settlements for break of contract like in California, but even these are usually pennies on the dollar and decades later.
- tremon 4y ago
  Property is indefinite (it exists as long as the legal system remains the same); fresh water is a limited resource. Care to explain which "same reason" applies to finite and infinite resources equally?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > fresh water is a limited resource A river running through a property is less limited than its mineral rights. Water rights aren’t about access to a specific amount of water but about the right to a flow that gets seasonally replenished. I’m not arguing that the way we do water rights makes sense. Just that it’s the way because it’s property.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Some ground water is almost identical to mineral rights, particularly aquafers which are not replenished. There is water that has been there for a hundred thousand years, and can be either used up, left in place, or somewhere in-between. If you buy/own rights to such water, it is not dissimilar to an oil field or mineral mine.
- vkou 4y ago
  There's nothing naturally indefinite about property rights. 1. In most locales, you have to pay an annual tax for a % of the property's value. If you don't pay it, you'll eventually lose your property. This is closer to rent, than it is to ownership. 2. In other locales, you cannot own property indefinitely. You can only lease it from the state, for some limited period of time. 3. Eminent domain and squatters rights, and when things really go to shit politically, land reform at the point of a bayonet. ... And, as another comment mentions, there's nothing indefinite about water. Overuse it this year, and you won't have any next year.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    There's a meaningful distinction in that state can't simply take your house away as long as you pay the taxes. Similarly, even with eminent domain you have to pay was considered a fair market price for what the government takes. This is the value of a property right. Similarly, the course I found that governments can't impose a 100% or arbitrarily High tax on something simply to take it.
    - vkou 4y ago
      So eminent domain these rights, and pay the owner back for the two sacks of turnips that their great-great-great-grandfather paid for them back in the 19th century, with whatever interest that would have accrued. A century and a half of free water use, plus interest on whatever the original payment was seems like a fair deal to me. There is no reason that we should be paying 'fair market price', when that price is artificially inflated by non-market participants hoarding all the water that they don't have to pay for... For themselves.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        good thing that you aren't the arbiter of property rights in the US, stealing whatever you want and paying what you feel.
        vkou 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I agree that maybe they should be. The question is how you go from the current state of affairs to this new paradigm. US law and rights prevents the government from simply coming in in taking property without compensation. This is the same reason that the government can't simply seize land, housing, or bank accounts of law abiding citizens to address various problems like homelessness.

kortilla 4y ago
The government absolutely can seize land for projects. Eminent domain.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Why should water rights be indefinite? Same reason property rights are.

scarmig 4y ago
It's a bit different, in that property rights are (at least in part) around to incentivize production of the property. Probably a better analogy is property rights in land.
- SilasX 4y ago
  Well ... in order to carry this over to ordinary real property, and make the situation analogous to water rights, you'd have to tweak a few things. Imagine that, if you didn't allow randos to walk through a plot of land, then, eventually, the plot would become toxic and totally useless, with a value of zero. (i.e. what will happen with water rights if they keep drawing according to the assumptions that ground the law). This is a purely physical constraint. Imagine furthermore that (like normal), the property right entitles the owner to stop randos from walking through, but also, if they don't exercise that right, then title to that plot will revert to someone else (i.e. how use-it-or-lose-it provisions work in water rights here). In isolation, then, it's totally rational for the owner to keep randos from walking through, as that maximizes their ability to profit from the land -- even though over the long-term this destroys the total use value of the land. The fix, then, is to say, "okay, we won't revert title to someone else anymore if you let randos walk through. Also, you can sell that right." Then, the owner will sell rando-walking right, and the land won't become toxic. Win win all around. You can even pay the owner for the lost value from the transition, and still come out ahead.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Why exactly is the land becoming toxic in this scenario?
    - SilasX 4y ago
      Just an arbitrary constraint in the analog, corresponding to how continued water drawing can kill off aquifers.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        OK, I think I largely agree that the solution is to let owners sell walking rights. This is described in the article as leasing the water rights, and I think a solid part of the solution. The problem is who pays for the walking rights, and how much. If it is too low, the owner would rather use the water/land until it is depleted. This is further complicated by the fact that in Utah, much of the farming water from rain isn't being depleted, but rather, the lake is drying up. Someone upstream might say, I have a source of water good for the next 1000 years, and can earn $10/year. Why should I accept $5/year to send it down stream? Also, the article mentions that a major issue is trust, which cant be stated enough. If I destroy my business and a life long investment to accept $5/year, what protections do I have that the price wont go to $1/year, or $0? If the state makes a binding contract, can I even trust that? This lack of trust is based in history, as cities and states in the west frequently brake water contracts with farmers. Sometimes states end up having to pay settlements for break of contract like in California, but even these are usually pennies on the dollar and decades later.
tremon 4y ago
Property is indefinite (it exists as long as the legal system remains the same); fresh water is a limited resource. Care to explain which "same reason" applies to finite and infinite resources equally?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > fresh water is a limited resource A river running through a property is less limited than its mineral rights. Water rights aren’t about access to a specific amount of water but about the right to a flow that gets seasonally replenished. I’m not arguing that the way we do water rights makes sense. Just that it’s the way because it’s property.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Some ground water is almost identical to mineral rights, particularly aquafers which are not replenished. There is water that has been there for a hundred thousand years, and can be either used up, left in place, or somewhere in-between. If you buy/own rights to such water, it is not dissimilar to an oil field or mineral mine.
vkou 4y ago
There's nothing naturally indefinite about property rights. 1. In most locales, you have to pay an annual tax for a % of the property's value. If you don't pay it, you'll eventually lose your property. This is closer to rent, than it is to ownership. 2. In other locales, you cannot own property indefinitely. You can only lease it from the state, for some limited period of time. 3. Eminent domain and squatters rights, and when things really go to shit politically, land reform at the point of a bayonet. ... And, as another comment mentions, there's nothing indefinite about water. Overuse it this year, and you won't have any next year.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  There's a meaningful distinction in that state can't simply take your house away as long as you pay the taxes. Similarly, even with eminent domain you have to pay was considered a fair market price for what the government takes. This is the value of a property right. Similarly, the course I found that governments can't impose a 100% or arbitrarily High tax on something simply to take it.
  - vkou 4y ago
    So eminent domain these rights, and pay the owner back for the two sacks of turnips that their great-great-great-grandfather paid for them back in the 19th century, with whatever interest that would have accrued. A century and a half of free water use, plus interest on whatever the original payment was seems like a fair deal to me. There is no reason that we should be paying 'fair market price', when that price is artificially inflated by non-market participants hoarding all the water that they don't have to pay for... For themselves.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      good thing that you aren't the arbiter of property rights in the US, stealing whatever you want and paying what you feel.
      - vkou 4y ago