8 ms·

I'm interested to see the details of the deal. With the Supreme Court ruling on the Colorado Compact that basically lets all the other states wither up and die

by causi 3y ago

I'm interested to see the details of the deal. With the Supreme Court ruling on the Colorado Compact that basically lets all the other states wither up and die before California has to go from watering its golf courses every three hours to every six hours, I'd be very surprised if they're cutting the same percentage as everyone else.

bcrosby95 3y ago
Most of the water California gets from the Colorado is funneled into the imperial valley for growing food (in a literal desert, not a hyperbolic one like most of California), which has extremely senior water rights.
- blululu 3y ago
  Imperial County receives a lubricous allotment from the Colorado River, but it is a better use than most of the claims to this water. The Central Arizona project, for instance, requires a coal plant to pump water uphill into a (even hotter) desert. Much as golf in the desert is a wasteful use of resources, golf courses generally pay market rate for their water and don't require federal subsidies to turn a profit. This is more than you can say for a lot of Colorado River water.
  - throwaway1777 3y ago
    Since this always comes up I feel obligated to point out golf courses don’t use near as much water as people think. They can use a lot of reclaimed and grey water for grass and ponds.
    - rqtwteye 3y ago
      Gold courses are the equivalent of "welfare queens". They don't really matter much in the big picture but look bad and are often used for political purposes.
    - m463 3y ago
      but you hear about golf courses in vegas using 300 million gallons of water a year and it sounds like a lot of water.
      - t-writescode 3y ago
        Which is hilarious because a real numbers look at Vegas’s water use and they’re a case study in near perfect water usage and conservation- yes, even with all their ridiculous pools. It’s amazing what can be done with good planning and design.
      - throwaway1777 3y ago
        Yeah but the point is they may “use” that much water, but not even close to that much is coming out of the rivers and reservoirs. Of course there may be some less sustainable golf courses which do use that much, and those should be fixed, don’t think many folks would debate you there.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jubjubbird 3y ago
    Navajo Generating Station, which was the largest coal-fired ppwer plant in the western U.S. and powered CAP pumping stations, closed in 2019 along with the accompanying coal mine.
- causi 3y ago
  Right, and the problem with water rights seniority is that the amounts were allocated based on 16.5 million acre-feet per year when the modern average annual flow is 11 million acre-feet.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Over allocation is not a problem with water right seniority itself. Seniority dictates that when there isn't enough to go around, the last in is first out. The problem/challenge is that those with the least seniority don't like being cut off.
    - rqtwteye 3y ago
      That's exactly the problem with seniority. You overallocate and the highest seniority levels get everything. Basically there is no need for allocation at all.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I don't understand your position. Are you saying that the problem with seniority is that it clearly solves the allocation debate and overallocation problem? Which part do you object to?
        scythe 3y ago
        >Are you saying that the problem with seniority is that it clearly solves Sarcastic quips like this do not promote a productive discussion. The commenter above is probably arguing that the oldest use is not necessarily the most valuable, and relying on stack allocation fails to make the most economically effective use of a limited resource.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I wasn't being sarcastic. They replied the following in a discussion about seniority causing allocation problems. >Basically there is no need for allocation at all. They might be saying what you did, but it was far from clear to me. If so, my response would be pretty straightforward: Seniority settles the question of rights. Buying and selling of rights and water is a very clear and effective way of putting them to the most effective economic use. If a potential user wants water and can put it to better use, they can simply buy it. If they are the city or state, they can even use eminent domain to force the sale.
bilbo0s 3y ago
California could care less if the Colorado Compact is changed. Their use of it is limited to a small area south of LA. Mostly for farming. Which they shouldn't be doing there anyway. It's states like Arizona that will have the problem. I lived in Scottsdale. Saw the writing on the wall and we sold the Scottsdale place for an insane amount of money. Having said that, if you can get a place just inside the border of the city of Phoenix, you'll probably be good. Phoenix has been socking away water forever and has about 70 to 100 years worth of it under the city. As a matter of water availability, I'd stay away from places out in the suburban areas though. If you've been paying attention down there, you probably kind of already know that if it comes to a head, Phoenix will take care of Phoenix. Places like Scottsdale, Mesa, or Tempe would be expected to solve their own problems. I firmly believe things are gonna get heated out in Arizona if the drought persists. No pun intended.
- throwaway1777 3y ago
  Counterpoint is that imperial valley farming is very productive because the climate is great for many crops other than the lack of water.
  - mywittyname 3y ago
    This is generally the case for hot deserts - with sufficient water, most would turn into lush jungles.
- blululu 3y ago
  The small area in the South you are talking about has more than half the State's population and is the largest constituency of the Colorado Compact. While the Imperial County claim is the bulk of California's claim to the Colorado, the water finds its way to cities as well. Thus California has a very large stake in the Colorado Compact (arguably the largest in terms of people and served and dollars made). If these people don't get water from the Colorado, they will look for it in the northern half of the state. It is cheaper and easier to collectively defend the very legitimate claims to the Colorado than to try to reallocate the state's other water resources.
- 3y ago

by causi 3y ago

bcrosby95 3y ago

Most of the water California gets from the Colorado is funneled into the imperial valley for growing food (in a literal desert, not a hyperbolic one like most of California), which has extremely senior water rights.

blululu 3y ago
Imperial County receives a lubricous allotment from the Colorado River, but it is a better use than most of the claims to this water. The Central Arizona project, for instance, requires a coal plant to pump water uphill into a (even hotter) desert. Much as golf in the desert is a wasteful use of resources, golf courses generally pay market rate for their water and don't require federal subsidies to turn a profit. This is more than you can say for a lot of Colorado River water.
- throwaway1777 3y ago
  Since this always comes up I feel obligated to point out golf courses don’t use near as much water as people think. They can use a lot of reclaimed and grey water for grass and ponds.
  - rqtwteye 3y ago
    Gold courses are the equivalent of "welfare queens". They don't really matter much in the big picture but look bad and are often used for political purposes.
  - m463 3y ago
    but you hear about golf courses in vegas using 300 million gallons of water a year and it sounds like a lot of water.
    - t-writescode 3y ago
      Which is hilarious because a real numbers look at Vegas’s water use and they’re a case study in near perfect water usage and conservation- yes, even with all their ridiculous pools. It’s amazing what can be done with good planning and design.
    - throwaway1777 3y ago
      Yeah but the point is they may “use” that much water, but not even close to that much is coming out of the rivers and reservoirs. Of course there may be some less sustainable golf courses which do use that much, and those should be fixed, don’t think many folks would debate you there.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jubjubbird 3y ago
  Navajo Generating Station, which was the largest coal-fired ppwer plant in the western U.S. and powered CAP pumping stations, closed in 2019 along with the accompanying coal mine.
causi 3y ago
Right, and the problem with water rights seniority is that the amounts were allocated based on 16.5 million acre-feet per year when the modern average annual flow is 11 million acre-feet.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Over allocation is not a problem with water right seniority itself. Seniority dictates that when there isn't enough to go around, the last in is first out. The problem/challenge is that those with the least seniority don't like being cut off.
  - rqtwteye 3y ago
    That's exactly the problem with seniority. You overallocate and the highest seniority levels get everything. Basically there is no need for allocation at all.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I don't understand your position. Are you saying that the problem with seniority is that it clearly solves the allocation debate and overallocation problem? Which part do you object to?
      - scythe 3y ago
        >Are you saying that the problem with seniority is that it clearly solves Sarcastic quips like this do not promote a productive discussion. The commenter above is probably arguing that the oldest use is not necessarily the most valuable, and relying on stack allocation fails to make the most economically effective use of a limited resource.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I wasn't being sarcastic. They replied the following in a discussion about seniority causing allocation problems. >Basically there is no need for allocation at all. They might be saying what you did, but it was far from clear to me. If so, my response would be pretty straightforward: Seniority settles the question of rights. Buying and selling of rights and water is a very clear and effective way of putting them to the most effective economic use. If a potential user wants water and can put it to better use, they can simply buy it. If they are the city or state, they can even use eminent domain to force the sale.

bilbo0s 3y ago

California could care less if the Colorado Compact is changed. Their use of it is limited to a small area south of LA. Mostly for farming. Which they shouldn't be doing there anyway. It's states like Arizona that will have the problem. I lived in Scottsdale. Saw the writing on the wall and we sold the Scottsdale place for an insane amount of money. Having said that, if you can get a place just inside the border of the city of Phoenix, you'll probably be good. Phoenix has been socking away water forever and has about 70 to 100 years worth of it under the city. As a matter of water availability, I'd stay away from places out in the suburban areas though. If you've been paying attention down there, you probably kind of already know that if it comes to a head, Phoenix will take care of Phoenix. Places like Scottsdale, Mesa, or Tempe would be expected to solve their own problems. I firmly believe things are gonna get heated out in Arizona if the drought persists. No pun intended.

throwaway1777 3y ago
Counterpoint is that imperial valley farming is very productive because the climate is great for many crops other than the lack of water.
- mywittyname 3y ago
  This is generally the case for hot deserts - with sufficient water, most would turn into lush jungles.
blululu 3y ago
The small area in the South you are talking about has more than half the State's population and is the largest constituency of the Colorado Compact. While the Imperial County claim is the bulk of California's claim to the Colorado, the water finds its way to cities as well. Thus California has a very large stake in the Colorado Compact (arguably the largest in terms of people and served and dollars made). If these people don't get water from the Colorado, they will look for it in the northern half of the state. It is cheaper and easier to collectively defend the very legitimate claims to the Colorado than to try to reallocate the state's other water resources.
3y ago