3 ms·

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 fl

by 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.
    - mikem170 3y ago
      > I don't understand your position. It could have been the case where the seniors were only given their rights because it was assumed there were 16.5 million acre-feet, and not 11 million. Or perhaps the juniors only agreed because they thought there would be 16.5 million acre-feet. Or the federal government may have allowed senior rights to continue to exist for so long because they thought there would be 16.5 million acre-feet. The idea of senior water rights, not sharing such an important resource, is inherently unfair. The senior people did nothing to earn more water than anyone else. They didn't put the river there. It seems there are better factors to consider when deciding how to distribute the water at this point than treaties based on bad data, signed a long time ago, when things were a lot different than they are today.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Seniority doesn't and shouldn't rely any flow assumptions or the agreement of juniors. I would argue that seniority systems are the most fair, because the junior parties are the ones that drive the scarcity and create the problem. On a small scale, If a family has been living off a stream for 100 years, and someone wants to move in an use the stream, in makes sense that the newcomer doesn't get access if there isn't enough for both. Similarly, it makes sense that the newcomer go without if there is a shortage.
        ska 3y ago
        I suspect in general if 'they were here first' is the only tool in your policy toolbox, you are going to have a bad time of it with growth and resource allocation. It works pretty ok with symmetric situations, but most situations aren't.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean by being the only tool in the toolbox. There's a long list of policy tools once you establish ownership. For example, if I want to turn your house into a public park, I can raise a tax to buy it instead of just taking it from you.
  - bcrosby95 3y ago
    Keep in mind the imperial valley's massive use of water predates the Colorado River Compact. Think about it this way: you move somewhere and you're using 50 gallons per day of water. An agreement comes up that says you can keep doing that. 10 million people move in after and there's now a water problem. Were you over-allocated 50 gallons per day? You could look at it two ways: you should sacrifice to help everyone else. Or, screw everyone else they shouldn't be here anyways. My general opinion is that while there's benefits to growing food in the imperial valley, they don't outweigh the benefits of not having to move tens of millions of people out of the southwest - that's like throwing trillions in development into the trash. California has access to the ocean for desalination, and other southwest states don't. The best thing for the country as a whole would be for California to ween itself off the Colorado River. But I don't think that's going to happen, at least, it won't without a fight.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      My opinion that the seniority should be settled once and for all in terms of date and volume. Once this is done, parties can work towards solutions. The southwest states and users can start buying rights from California and farmers. One reason there is so much fighting and acrimony is that each party thinks they can get more water for free by convincing a judge they deserve or need it more. This is further complicated by the fact that the best way to demonstrate need it to increase your dependence and set yourself up for even worse disaster if you don't get what you want.
    - rqtwteye 3y ago
      "Think about it this way: you move somewhere and you're using 50 gallons per day of water. An agreement comes up that says you can keep doing that. 10 million people move in after and there's now a water problem. Were you over-allocated 50 gallons per day?" There was a time when factories could pollute legally as much as they wanted. Then things change and they had to adapt. We can't have people insist on water rights that were given at a different time. They have to adapt.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
throwaway1777 3y ago
It does seem like a percentage or sliding scale is needed. Likely it didn’t seem like something worth considering many decades ago
rconti 3y ago
In fact, I saw a source (I forget where, sorry) that said this 16.5 million acre-feet estimate was calculated a time of historically large river flow. So it's not just that the flow is going down, it's that the original projection was based on an unrealistic target, even back then!
somat 3y ago
I always found it puzzling that the distribution is a fixed value rather than a ratio. Especially the Colorado river. An infamously volatile river. Most of the time it is a rather small desert river. but when it floods it floods something awful.

by 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.
  - mikem170 3y ago
    > I don't understand your position. It could have been the case where the seniors were only given their rights because it was assumed there were 16.5 million acre-feet, and not 11 million. Or perhaps the juniors only agreed because they thought there would be 16.5 million acre-feet. Or the federal government may have allowed senior rights to continue to exist for so long because they thought there would be 16.5 million acre-feet. The idea of senior water rights, not sharing such an important resource, is inherently unfair. The senior people did nothing to earn more water than anyone else. They didn't put the river there. It seems there are better factors to consider when deciding how to distribute the water at this point than treaties based on bad data, signed a long time ago, when things were a lot different than they are today.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Seniority doesn't and shouldn't rely any flow assumptions or the agreement of juniors. I would argue that seniority systems are the most fair, because the junior parties are the ones that drive the scarcity and create the problem. On a small scale, If a family has been living off a stream for 100 years, and someone wants to move in an use the stream, in makes sense that the newcomer doesn't get access if there isn't enough for both. Similarly, it makes sense that the newcomer go without if there is a shortage.
      - ska 3y ago
        I suspect in general if 'they were here first' is the only tool in your policy toolbox, you are going to have a bad time of it with growth and resource allocation. It works pretty ok with symmetric situations, but most situations aren't.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean by being the only tool in the toolbox. There's a long list of policy tools once you establish ownership. For example, if I want to turn your house into a public park, I can raise a tax to buy it instead of just taking it from you.
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  Keep in mind the imperial valley's massive use of water predates the Colorado River Compact. Think about it this way: you move somewhere and you're using 50 gallons per day of water. An agreement comes up that says you can keep doing that. 10 million people move in after and there's now a water problem. Were you over-allocated 50 gallons per day? You could look at it two ways: you should sacrifice to help everyone else. Or, screw everyone else they shouldn't be here anyways. My general opinion is that while there's benefits to growing food in the imperial valley, they don't outweigh the benefits of not having to move tens of millions of people out of the southwest - that's like throwing trillions in development into the trash. California has access to the ocean for desalination, and other southwest states don't. The best thing for the country as a whole would be for California to ween itself off the Colorado River. But I don't think that's going to happen, at least, it won't without a fight.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    My opinion that the seniority should be settled once and for all in terms of date and volume. Once this is done, parties can work towards solutions. The southwest states and users can start buying rights from California and farmers. One reason there is so much fighting and acrimony is that each party thinks they can get more water for free by convincing a judge they deserve or need it more. This is further complicated by the fact that the best way to demonstrate need it to increase your dependence and set yourself up for even worse disaster if you don't get what you want.
  - rqtwteye 3y ago
    "Think about it this way: you move somewhere and you're using 50 gallons per day of water. An agreement comes up that says you can keep doing that. 10 million people move in after and there's now a water problem. Were you over-allocated 50 gallons per day?" There was a time when factories could pollute legally as much as they wanted. Then things change and they had to adapt. We can't have people insist on water rights that were given at a different time. They have to adapt.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago

throwaway1777 3y ago

It does seem like a percentage or sliding scale is needed. Likely it didn’t seem like something worth considering many decades ago

rconti 3y ago

In fact, I saw a source (I forget where, sorry) that said this 16.5 million acre-feet estimate was calculated a time of historically large river flow. So it's not just that the flow is going down, it's that the original projection was based on an unrealistic target, even back then!

somat 3y ago

I always found it puzzling that the distribution is a fixed value rather than a ratio. Especially the Colorado river. An infamously volatile river. Most of the time it is a rather small desert river. but when it floods it floods something awful.