5 ms·

The California[1] Water Rights system is staggeringly inequitable, and is really an indictment of "democracy", where large, entrenched power bases vote just for

The California[1] Water Rights system is staggeringly inequitable, and is really an indictment of "democracy", where large, entrenched power bases vote just for the selfish interests, preventing progress towards a better managed, more equitable system. There's a good lesson in there about politics and power, which I'm not experienced or eloquent enough to express. [1] likely not limited to just California!

AceJohnny2 3y ago
also fun fact: I recently learned during a visit to the Hoover Dam that its primary purpose isn't power but managing water flow to the downstream (water-)rights-holders. Power is a side-effect.
bradleyjg 3y ago
It’s not limited to California. It’s most of the western states. The problem with trying to reform it is that the state courts have found that prior appropriation created a vested property right. Once declared by a state such a right is protected by the Fifth Amendment (as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.) So it’s very difficult/expensive to unwind this mistake.
- dataflow 3y ago
  Is "just compensation" not a mechanism for doing this here?
  - bradleyjg 3y ago
    Yes. So states can’t just abolish prior appropriation and move to riparian rights. They’d also need to allocate money to buy out all the old rights.
- innagadadavida 3y ago
  How about taxing them? Is that allowed by the constitution?
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    Yeah seems to me like taxing the water on its true value and thus forcing efficient usage of it would be the rational market oriented approach.
  - bradleyjg 3y ago
    The federal government can’t put in a property tax on these rights because of the direct tax clause. The state governments could tax the water rights, but not in a way that is “confiscatory” or “excessive.”
    - CogitoCogito 3y ago
      > The state governments could tax the water rights, but not in a way that is “confiscatory” or “excessive.” What does confiscatory and excessive mean in this case? People do have to sell off properties to pay off tax debt (some properties are exempt I guess) so I would hope water rights could be taxable even if the result is that the owners would be forced to sell the rights. Am I incorrect?
      - chii 3y ago
        what is the value on which the tax is levied? I think if you follow this train of thought to its logical conclusion, the tax would be levied on a value that is "arbituary", since these water rights are granted, and not purchased at a market price. I think the gov't paying to buy out all existing rights, is better than allowing arbituary taxation like this.
        CogitoCogito 3y ago
        We assess the value of real estate for taxation purposes. We can assess the value of water for taxation purposes.
nradov 3y ago
Which votes are you referring to? Unfortunately this is largely a property rights issue so not much has even come to a vote. In theory state legislators could give the government greater statutory authority to seize water rights under eminent domain and pay compensation to rights holders, but the budget impact would be huge.
batman-farts 3y ago
Yeah, I think this can only be a criticism of "democracy" in an extremely narrow sense. Much of the situation is still determined through litigation, not legislation, whether in court or in front of the state water resources board. My mom worked for a water attorney, and I lived and worked in ag in an irrigation district that had an active case in front of the water board. In both cases, the billable hours were endless, and in the latter case, winning a defense in front of the water board was enough to get the lead attorney a promotion to senior staff lawyer at another irrigation district. Plus sheer cashflow, not votes, is what's driving a lot of the more water-intensive ag in the dry southern end of the San Joaquin Valley. The Resnicks (Wonderful pomegranate juice/almonds/pistachios, Cutie citrus, billionaire LA residents) are essentially agribusiness investors rather than hands-on farmers, and most emphatically DO NOT have senior water rights for most of their operations, but they DO have the cashflow to buy water off of more senior rights holders, and they have the nationwide distribution on the other end to keep that cashflow going. Whether that continues to be sustainable, or their heirs want to keep it up... we shall see. In the meantime, it is a perfectly reasonable business decision as a senior rights holder to fallow your land or otherwise curtail your use, and sell your allotment down the aqueduct. Fresno State has the California Water Institute which publishes a great deal of informative studies and policy papers: http://www.californiawater.org/publications/ http://www.californiawater.org/publications/ They've noted in the past that transactions like this essentially carry no tax or infrastructure maintenance fees. That's one policy change that could easily be voted into place. Even setting aside the financial cost considerations other commenters have expressed, getting voters behind a wholesale change is a big project. The water situation simply hasn't started to bite hard enough for the bulk of the state's urban population. I'm often skeptical of ballot initiatives and the necessarily shallow marketing campaigns that accompany them, and a ballot initiative to reform the pre-/post-1914 water rights system would need an absolutely huge, multi-year educational push and likely multiple failures and retries at the ballot box. That's not to say it's impossible, as things are noticeably changing. These days, I live over the hill from Coalinga, which almost ran the hell out of water last year: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/24/coalinga-california-faces-the-end-of-its-water-supply-by-dec-1.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/24/coalinga-california-faces-th...
- Obscurity4340 3y ago

AceJohnny2 3y ago

also fun fact: I recently learned during a visit to the Hoover Dam that its primary purpose isn't power but managing water flow to the downstream (water-)rights-holders. Power is a side-effect.

bradleyjg 3y ago

It’s not limited to California. It’s most of the western states. The problem with trying to reform it is that the state courts have found that prior appropriation created a vested property right. Once declared by a state such a right is protected by the Fifth Amendment (as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.) So it’s very difficult/expensive to unwind this mistake.

dataflow 3y ago
Is "just compensation" not a mechanism for doing this here?
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  Yes. So states can’t just abolish prior appropriation and move to riparian rights. They’d also need to allocate money to buy out all the old rights.
innagadadavida 3y ago
How about taxing them? Is that allowed by the constitution?
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  Yeah seems to me like taxing the water on its true value and thus forcing efficient usage of it would be the rational market oriented approach.
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  The federal government can’t put in a property tax on these rights because of the direct tax clause. The state governments could tax the water rights, but not in a way that is “confiscatory” or “excessive.”
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    > The state governments could tax the water rights, but not in a way that is “confiscatory” or “excessive.” What does confiscatory and excessive mean in this case? People do have to sell off properties to pay off tax debt (some properties are exempt I guess) so I would hope water rights could be taxable even if the result is that the owners would be forced to sell the rights. Am I incorrect?
    - chii 3y ago
      what is the value on which the tax is levied? I think if you follow this train of thought to its logical conclusion, the tax would be levied on a value that is "arbituary", since these water rights are granted, and not purchased at a market price. I think the gov't paying to buy out all existing rights, is better than allowing arbituary taxation like this.
      - CogitoCogito 3y ago
        We assess the value of real estate for taxation purposes. We can assess the value of water for taxation purposes.

nradov 3y ago

Which votes are you referring to? Unfortunately this is largely a property rights issue so not much has even come to a vote. In theory state legislators could give the government greater statutory authority to seize water rights under eminent domain and pay compensation to rights holders, but the budget impact would be huge.

batman-farts 3y ago

Yeah, I think this can only be a criticism of "democracy" in an extremely narrow sense. Much of the situation is still determined through litigation, not legislation, whether in court or in front of the state water resources board. My mom worked for a water attorney, and I lived and worked in ag in an irrigation district that had an active case in front of the water board. In both cases, the billable hours were endless, and in the latter case, winning a defense in front of the water board was enough to get the lead attorney a promotion to senior staff lawyer at another irrigation district. Plus sheer cashflow, not votes, is what's driving a lot of the more water-intensive ag in the dry southern end of the San Joaquin Valley. The Resnicks (Wonderful pomegranate juice/almonds/pistachios, Cutie citrus, billionaire LA residents) are essentially agribusiness investors rather than hands-on farmers, and most emphatically DO NOT have senior water rights for most of their operations, but they DO have the cashflow to buy water off of more senior rights holders, and they have the nationwide distribution on the other end to keep that cashflow going. Whether that continues to be sustainable, or their heirs want to keep it up... we shall see. In the meantime, it is a perfectly reasonable business decision as a senior rights holder to fallow your land or otherwise curtail your use, and sell your allotment down the aqueduct. Fresno State has the California Water Institute which publishes a great deal of informative studies and policy papers: http://www.californiawater.org/publications/ http://www.californiawater.org/publications/ They've noted in the past that transactions like this essentially carry no tax or infrastructure maintenance fees. That's one policy change that could easily be voted into place. Even setting aside the financial cost considerations other commenters have expressed, getting voters behind a wholesale change is a big project. The water situation simply hasn't started to bite hard enough for the bulk of the state's urban population. I'm often skeptical of ballot initiatives and the necessarily shallow marketing campaigns that accompany them, and a ballot initiative to reform the pre-/post-1914 water rights system would need an absolutely huge, multi-year educational push and likely multiple failures and retries at the ballot box. That's not to say it's impossible, as things are noticeably changing. These days, I live over the hill from Coalinga, which almost ran the hell out of water last year: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/24/coalinga-california-faces-the-end-of-its-water-supply-by-dec-1.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/24/coalinga-california-faces-th...

Obscurity4340 3y ago