3 ms·

This has been happening for commercial/residential cases, but most agriculture is based on water shares - a right to a certain amount of water that someone purc

by suresk 4y ago

This has been happening for commercial/residential cases, but most agriculture is based on water shares - a right to a certain amount of water that someone purchased a long time ago, so you can't really raise the price on them. One solution I've seen kicked around is spending a bunch of money to buy back those shares at well above market rates to conserve the water.

WalterBright 4y ago
Eminent Domain allows government to adjust such rights, just like it can just take your property to run a freeway through it. The government can also tax it.
- suresk 4y ago
  Certainly, although I think that is much closer to "force" than "raising the price". Also, it is politically infeasible in Utah.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Nobody wants to pay to eminent domain it. Similarly, the courts have found that taxes intended explicitly to extort and take property are illegal. If the city wants Walterbright's house, they can't just impose a 1000% property tax on you to avoid buying your house.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    At some point, the current system of water rights is going to collapse one way or another.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I don't know if the water rights system will collapse, but ownership is definitely in for a shake up. Currently there is a large conflict between three parties: government, environmentalist, and owners. Ultimately I think private owners will increasingly sell out or lease their resource rights to the government. This will leave the government to arbitrate the conflicts between human usage and human consumption. My guess is that this will eventually take place under the existing systems of Rights and ownership in various States. Whether you call this a collapse or simply a shift is just a matter of terminology. My hope is that this will be a lawful transition where governments and people who want water buyout the interest and stake of those who currently own it

by suresk 4y ago

WalterBright 4y ago

Eminent Domain allows government to adjust such rights, just like it can just take your property to run a freeway through it. The government can also tax it.

suresk 4y ago
Certainly, although I think that is much closer to "force" than "raising the price". Also, it is politically infeasible in Utah.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Nobody wants to pay to eminent domain it. Similarly, the courts have found that taxes intended explicitly to extort and take property are illegal. If the city wants Walterbright's house, they can't just impose a 1000% property tax on you to avoid buying your house.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  At some point, the current system of water rights is going to collapse one way or another.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I don't know if the water rights system will collapse, but ownership is definitely in for a shake up. Currently there is a large conflict between three parties: government, environmentalist, and owners. Ultimately I think private owners will increasingly sell out or lease their resource rights to the government. This will leave the government to arbitrate the conflicts between human usage and human consumption. My guess is that this will eventually take place under the existing systems of Rights and ownership in various States. Whether you call this a collapse or simply a shift is just a matter of terminology. My hope is that this will be a lawful transition where governments and people who want water buyout the interest and stake of those who currently own it