5 ms·

Not exclusive to California and very difficult to address from a legal (and political standpoint).

rektide 4y ago
People keep saying that it's difficult to address, but it's such a gross gross deep & harmful iniquity. Trying to keep absurd promises that could never be satisfied going as long as possible, and leaving the rest of civilization out to dry to do it, needs to face the reckoning it inevitiably smashes us all upon sooner. Do it now. This may be "legal" but it's deeply immoral & unjust & it's perpetuation de-legtimizes the idea of government rather than preserves it. These promises of rights were vastly out of proportion. They were granted at no charge. We should have no compunction about saying no, now, while there is still some water left in the west & not just after it's gone & these folk again are left with nothing or radically reduced water. Letting the crisis overcome us & being afraid to rescind that-which-was-never-available is cowardly, invites true disaster.
- miguelazo 4y ago
  Couldn't agree with you more, but that doesn't change the political dynamics in place. Until Californians rise up against the real estate and big ag interests that control the state, things will stay the same. California has a reputation for being liberal and progressive, but that's really only in comparison to other retrograde states. It has gotten pretty conservative on all but social issues since the 1970s (and there are glaring hypocrisies on the social front as well when marginalized groups were involved).
jjeaff 4y ago
We can take land away from people to build a football stadium using imminent domain. Seems like water for the entire state would be a much more reasonable use of imminent domain.
- miguelazo 4y ago
  To be clear, I fully agree that the water laws should be changed. I'm saying that based on the nature and longevity of the laws, along with the political dynamics of the state (controlled by real state and big ag interests), it is extremely difficult to change them. It's usually poor neighborhoods that get bulldozed and gentrified for a football stadium, so not an apt comparison. There are some good proposals out there: https://law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk10866/files/media/documents/SanFranciscoChronicleOpEd.pdf https://law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk10866/files/medi...
- rektide 4y ago
  Supposedly the government has to pay to exercise Imminent Domain. But water is ever increasingly scarce and grows more and more expensive. And we promised these people mountains of water forever. There's no way to buy these people out. The price is infinity. The proverbial All The Gold In Fort Knox is still less valuable than top rights to the rivers & aquifers forever. So what do we do? Should we go broke paying ever more for Imminent Domain money to re-civilize water we said belonged to the very few, the very old interests? Imminemt Domain doesnt seem sufficient here. Do we do nothing, and just let there be not enough water, let the right dry up along with the water supply itself, and let the shared pain also impact the rest of civilization? This is such a pitiful situation. It drives me nuts that we are so afraid to have a government that can redress it's own criminally poor life-threatening choices. Someone needs to sue the government for granting these impossible water rights in the first place- force these rights to be overturned- with a charge of negligent homicide against the state. Right now there's seeming agreement there's no escape from these rights, but the rest of the world also has some rights, and those rights needed a stake at the table many decades ago when these absurd water rights were being created. Or we need real redress now, cancelling the impossible promise of exploitation forever.
  - jjeaff 4y ago
    The same could be said for any land. You could grow crops on it or lease it out forever. They have to give you a reasonable price, but it is rarely enough to appease the owners. Which is why they are taking it by force.

People keep saying that it's difficult to address, but it's such a gross gross deep & harmful iniquity. Trying to keep absurd promises that could never be satisfied going as long as possible, and leaving the rest of civilization out to dry to do it, needs to face the reckoning it inevitiably smashes us all upon sooner. Do it now. This may be "legal" but it's deeply immoral & unjust & it's perpetuation de-legtimizes the idea of government rather than preserves it. These promises of rights were vastly out of proportion. They were granted at no charge. We should have no compunction about saying no, now, while there is still some water left in the west & not just after it's gone & these folk again are left with nothing or radically reduced water. Letting the crisis overcome us & being afraid to rescind that-which-was-never-available is cowardly, invites true disaster.

miguelazo 4y ago
Couldn't agree with you more, but that doesn't change the political dynamics in place. Until Californians rise up against the real estate and big ag interests that control the state, things will stay the same. California has a reputation for being liberal and progressive, but that's really only in comparison to other retrograde states. It has gotten pretty conservative on all but social issues since the 1970s (and there are glaring hypocrisies on the social front as well when marginalized groups were involved).

jjeaff 4y ago

We can take land away from people to build a football stadium using imminent domain. Seems like water for the entire state would be a much more reasonable use of imminent domain.

miguelazo 4y ago
To be clear, I fully agree that the water laws should be changed. I'm saying that based on the nature and longevity of the laws, along with the political dynamics of the state (controlled by real state and big ag interests), it is extremely difficult to change them. It's usually poor neighborhoods that get bulldozed and gentrified for a football stadium, so not an apt comparison. There are some good proposals out there: https://law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk10866/files/media/documents/SanFranciscoChronicleOpEd.pdf https://law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk10866/files/medi...
rektide 4y ago
Supposedly the government has to pay to exercise Imminent Domain. But water is ever increasingly scarce and grows more and more expensive. And we promised these people mountains of water forever. There's no way to buy these people out. The price is infinity. The proverbial All The Gold In Fort Knox is still less valuable than top rights to the rivers & aquifers forever. So what do we do? Should we go broke paying ever more for Imminent Domain money to re-civilize water we said belonged to the very few, the very old interests? Imminemt Domain doesnt seem sufficient here. Do we do nothing, and just let there be not enough water, let the right dry up along with the water supply itself, and let the shared pain also impact the rest of civilization? This is such a pitiful situation. It drives me nuts that we are so afraid to have a government that can redress it's own criminally poor life-threatening choices. Someone needs to sue the government for granting these impossible water rights in the first place- force these rights to be overturned- with a charge of negligent homicide against the state. Right now there's seeming agreement there's no escape from these rights, but the rest of the world also has some rights, and those rights needed a stake at the table many decades ago when these absurd water rights were being created. Or we need real redress now, cancelling the impossible promise of exploitation forever.
- jjeaff 4y ago
  The same could be said for any land. You could grow crops on it or lease it out forever. They have to give you a reasonable price, but it is rarely enough to appease the owners. Which is why they are taking it by force.