3 ms·

> In many instances this water was already paid for, or the state decided that farmers must continue to pay while the state doesn't hold up their side of the co

by cmh89 3y ago

> In many instances this water was already paid for, or the state decided that farmers must continue to pay while the state doesn't hold up their side of the contract. Do you have citations for this? >The closest analogy for the groundwater situation is if you owned a farm in a migratory bird path and the state passed a law for minimum roosting land. Then, instead of buying your farm and land, they didn't compensate you but said you aren't allowed to continue using it as you have been. isn't this how literally all laws prohibiting something work? The government generally doesn't prohibit something if no one is doing it. Why should the government buy their land? For example, the government built the interstate highway network of which all of those central valley farmers need to ship their products by using the law to seize land and then changing the character of millions of acres of homes from quiet and peaceful to loud and toxic. They did not generally buyout homeowners who were not necessary to build the road despite fundamentally changing how they were using their property.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I will try to find some decent citations. There are several legal cases and settlement for the former. >isn't this how literally all laws prohibiting something work? The government generally doesn't prohibit something if no one is doing it. Why should the government buy their land? No, this isn't how things generally work. It is one thing if a highway changes the character of your neighborhood, but another if the state makes you move out and demolishes your house to build the road. This is the second scenario. In the case of groundwater, the state recognizes farmers as the owners of the water rights (so they are not being taken away), but limits farmers from exercising those rights. Simultaneously, they allow other groups without the water rights to use it.
- cmh89 3y ago
  > It is one thing if a highway changes the character of your neighborhood, but another if the state makes you move out and demolishes your house to build the road. This is the second scenario. It is very obviously not. I'm just pointing out that your 'bird' analogy doesn't work because the government makes laws and policy that affect how existing property owners can use their land all the time. >In the case of groundwater, the state recognizes farmers as the owners of the water rights (so they are not being taken away), but limits farmers from exercising those rights. Simultaneously, they allow other groups without the water rights to use it. If you want to find some specific examples, that would be helpful. The state also recognizes my rights to the car I own but can make policies on how I use my property including outright banning my use of it. Water rights aren't god given like the Central Valley farmers would like you to believe. They fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California and the United States of America. I personally think the Central Valley farmers should stop looking for handouts, show some personal responsibility and adapt to reality instead of asking Uncle Sam to bail them out again.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    >It is very obviously not. I'm just pointing out that your 'bird' analogy doesn't work because the government makes laws and policy that affect how existing property owners can use their land all the time. Yes it does, but there is obviously a legal line which can be crossed and be considered a government seizure of property. The California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 [1] is the example for groundwater usage, currently being litigated all over the state. It doesn't change groundwater rights, but sets up agencies with the power to allocate usage in penalties which ignore the groundwater rights or seniority of rights. A farmers who have been somewhere for a 100 years can and are being prevented from using water, while recently developed communities or other stakeholders get a pass. >Water rights aren't god given like the Central Valley farmers would like you to believe. They fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California and the United States of America. What does that mean in this context? All of your property and even your life fall under legal jurisdiction. That doesn't mean the state can ignore the laws it has established and take them away without due process. Where established groundwater rights exist, this is clearly the case of the house being demolished to make way for the freeway, not making rules for the color of your paint. It is taking something that is recognized property of one person who is using it, and then using it for another purpose. I personally think that citizens of California should show some responsibility and buy water from those with rights, instead of acting like petty thieves. If the state is free to systemically ignore its own laws, then individuals should be free do the same. However, that lawless society is not one I would want to live in. https://blogs.edf.org/growingreturns/2018/09/04/groundwater-managers-sgma-compliance/ https://blogs.edf.org/growingreturns/2018/09/04/groundwater-... https://mavensnotebook.com/2021/01/13/sgma-in-action-challenges-and-opportunities-environmental-justice-considerations-and-first-lawsuits-over-gsp-plans/ https://mavensnotebook.com/2021/01/13/sgma-in-action-challen... https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3368r414#main https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3368r414#main
    - cmh89 3y ago
      >It doesn't change groundwater rights, but sets up agencies with the power to allocate usage in penalties which ignore the groundwater rights or seniority of rights. A farmers who have been somewhere for a 100 years can and are being prevented from using water, while recently developed communities or other stakeholders get a pass. Wait till you hear who that farmer took 'his' water rights from! They were there a hell of a lot longer than 100 years. >What does that mean in this context? All of your property and even your life fall under legal jurisdiction. That doesn't mean the state can ignore the laws it has established and take them away without due process. You haven't given an example of the State of California taking away someone's rights without due process though. >I personally think that citizens of California should show some responsibility and buy water from those with rights, instead of acting like petty thieves. If the state is free to systemically ignore its own laws, then individuals should be free do the same. However, that lawless society is not one I would want to live in. Your claim that California is 'acting like petty thieves' is unsubstantiated. You haven't provided any examples of that. There is a difference between what you'd like the law to be and what it is. I'm open to reading about examples that support your argument if you have them. The realistic situation on the ground is that ranchers/farmers were allowed to act like drunks at an open bar and now the state is managing water more responsibly with respect to ALL the stakeholders in the community.

by cmh89 3y ago

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I will try to find some decent citations. There are several legal cases and settlement for the former. >isn't this how literally all laws prohibiting something work? The government generally doesn't prohibit something if no one is doing it. Why should the government buy their land? No, this isn't how things generally work. It is one thing if a highway changes the character of your neighborhood, but another if the state makes you move out and demolishes your house to build the road. This is the second scenario. In the case of groundwater, the state recognizes farmers as the owners of the water rights (so they are not being taken away), but limits farmers from exercising those rights. Simultaneously, they allow other groups without the water rights to use it.

cmh89 3y ago
> It is one thing if a highway changes the character of your neighborhood, but another if the state makes you move out and demolishes your house to build the road. This is the second scenario. It is very obviously not. I'm just pointing out that your 'bird' analogy doesn't work because the government makes laws and policy that affect how existing property owners can use their land all the time. >In the case of groundwater, the state recognizes farmers as the owners of the water rights (so they are not being taken away), but limits farmers from exercising those rights. Simultaneously, they allow other groups without the water rights to use it. If you want to find some specific examples, that would be helpful. The state also recognizes my rights to the car I own but can make policies on how I use my property including outright banning my use of it. Water rights aren't god given like the Central Valley farmers would like you to believe. They fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California and the United States of America. I personally think the Central Valley farmers should stop looking for handouts, show some personal responsibility and adapt to reality instead of asking Uncle Sam to bail them out again.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  >It is very obviously not. I'm just pointing out that your 'bird' analogy doesn't work because the government makes laws and policy that affect how existing property owners can use their land all the time. Yes it does, but there is obviously a legal line which can be crossed and be considered a government seizure of property. The California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 [1] is the example for groundwater usage, currently being litigated all over the state. It doesn't change groundwater rights, but sets up agencies with the power to allocate usage in penalties which ignore the groundwater rights or seniority of rights. A farmers who have been somewhere for a 100 years can and are being prevented from using water, while recently developed communities or other stakeholders get a pass. >Water rights aren't god given like the Central Valley farmers would like you to believe. They fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California and the United States of America. What does that mean in this context? All of your property and even your life fall under legal jurisdiction. That doesn't mean the state can ignore the laws it has established and take them away without due process. Where established groundwater rights exist, this is clearly the case of the house being demolished to make way for the freeway, not making rules for the color of your paint. It is taking something that is recognized property of one person who is using it, and then using it for another purpose. I personally think that citizens of California should show some responsibility and buy water from those with rights, instead of acting like petty thieves. If the state is free to systemically ignore its own laws, then individuals should be free do the same. However, that lawless society is not one I would want to live in. https://blogs.edf.org/growingreturns/2018/09/04/groundwater-managers-sgma-compliance/ https://blogs.edf.org/growingreturns/2018/09/04/groundwater-... https://mavensnotebook.com/2021/01/13/sgma-in-action-challenges-and-opportunities-environmental-justice-considerations-and-first-lawsuits-over-gsp-plans/ https://mavensnotebook.com/2021/01/13/sgma-in-action-challen... https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3368r414#main https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3368r414#main
  - cmh89 3y ago
    >It doesn't change groundwater rights, but sets up agencies with the power to allocate usage in penalties which ignore the groundwater rights or seniority of rights. A farmers who have been somewhere for a 100 years can and are being prevented from using water, while recently developed communities or other stakeholders get a pass. Wait till you hear who that farmer took 'his' water rights from! They were there a hell of a lot longer than 100 years. >What does that mean in this context? All of your property and even your life fall under legal jurisdiction. That doesn't mean the state can ignore the laws it has established and take them away without due process. You haven't given an example of the State of California taking away someone's rights without due process though. >I personally think that citizens of California should show some responsibility and buy water from those with rights, instead of acting like petty thieves. If the state is free to systemically ignore its own laws, then individuals should be free do the same. However, that lawless society is not one I would want to live in. Your claim that California is 'acting like petty thieves' is unsubstantiated. You haven't provided any examples of that. There is a difference between what you'd like the law to be and what it is. I'm open to reading about examples that support your argument if you have them. The realistic situation on the ground is that ranchers/farmers were allowed to act like drunks at an open bar and now the state is managing water more responsibly with respect to ALL the stakeholders in the community.