4 ms·

If water is scarce then the price should reflect it. These “outrages” all seem to be about outsized private profit from too-cheap public resources.

ajmurmann 3y ago
This is true and unfortunately more complicated. I've long been saying "just price it at real market value and the issue will be solved", similar to what you are saying. The problem is that farmers don't get the water from the faucet, but through archaic water rights to rivers, lakes, wells, etc. We'd need to reform those water rights and I bet no politician has enough interest to fight a dirty media battle with "the people who provide your food" who I also would expect to likely get physically violent at some point.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > The problem is that farmers don't get the water from the faucet, but through archaic water rights to rivers, lakes, wells, etc. By "archaic" do you mean they got there first? Because farming has been around in (e.g.) Arizona for >100 years, and there weren't any problems back then when there was mostly a whole lot of nothin' in the region. * https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-arizona-farmer-on-how-to-grow-alfalfa-in-the/id1056200096?i=1000620995337 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-arizona-farmer-on-h... * https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/understanding-the-real-fight-over-water-in-arizona/id1056200096?i=1000621126694 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/understanding-the-real... Then folks decided that building large population centres in the middle of the desert was a good idea, and here we are. It should also be noted that Native Americans were also living and farming before white settlers arrived: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix,_Arizona#Early_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix,_Arizona#Early_history Though it's not like having large civilizations living in a desert is unique to the American (South-)West: see Mesopotamia and Egypt. They're just usually huddle around rivers.
  - mjhay 3y ago
    There's massive population in the desert now, but that's not where the water is going. The vast majority of water is used by agriculture, which has also expanded massively in the same time frame. It's a red herring that natives and early settlers farmed in the same areas - the water they used is nothing compared to modern agriculture. Efficient water usage (e.g. drip irrigation) and not growing comically unsuitable crops like alfalfa would solve this problem, even in the face of climate change.
    - ticviking 3y ago
      The point is that there was enough water in the desert until people decided building massive retirement communities in the desert was a good idea.
      - mjhay 3y ago
        That's simply not true. The retirement communities simply aren't why the water shortage is happening. It's agriculture, not residential use. The water usage numbers are well known. You're just assuming that population growth must have caused the water shortage, while ignoring the much greater increases in agricultural usage over the same timeframe.
        peteradio 3y ago
        The reason for the complaining is the population not the farmers. Why do you think they built the retirement communities in the desert? That's right! The land was gobsmackingly cheap! Why? Because the land was reeeeeeally shitty because the water sources were so poor! Would you be so defensive of the residents if this was Florida coast?
        mjhay 3y ago
        This is really quite simple: farmers use the vast majority of the water. Residential use is small in comparison. We're talking about water. Land use is only indirectly related. It's illogical on its face to say that the main problem is residential use when farming uses vastly more.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  Maybe there's a market-based solution that works well for them too. Let them keep the water rights, but also let them resell the water. It's probably worth more to someone else. I'm sure there's some obstacle to that too.
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    This seems like a great solution. The only issue I could see is that this doesn't solve nature conservation issues were rivers and creeks will run entirely dry and all wildlife dies. Maybe we can solve this by buying a portion of the water to keep it running in the stream.
  - naijaboiler 3y ago
    Not comparing agriculture to slavery. But people made this private property rights for slavery too. Sometimes wrong is just wrong. Fuck your rights. Wasting scarce water in a desert to grow unsuitable plants because your grandfather bought some cheap water rights is just wrong.
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      If the plants are so unsuitable, then it'll be more profitable to sell the water than it is to grow the plants. And idk what any of this has to do with slavery, especially in CA, but fortunately the law does uphold private property rights.
    - runeks 3y ago
      I think you are making a comparison to slavery, which is not relevant because no one is suggesting that it's okay to own another human being.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
Water rights in california are so entrenched that taking them away from farmers would certainly lead to massive court battles and probably many billions in takings clause payments. There's just no political will for that when combined with the pr/media battle the farmers will put up.

ajmurmann 3y ago

This is true and unfortunately more complicated. I've long been saying "just price it at real market value and the issue will be solved", similar to what you are saying. The problem is that farmers don't get the water from the faucet, but through archaic water rights to rivers, lakes, wells, etc. We'd need to reform those water rights and I bet no politician has enough interest to fight a dirty media battle with "the people who provide your food" who I also would expect to likely get physically violent at some point.

throw0101b 3y ago
> The problem is that farmers don't get the water from the faucet, but through archaic water rights to rivers, lakes, wells, etc. By "archaic" do you mean they got there first? Because farming has been around in (e.g.) Arizona for >100 years, and there weren't any problems back then when there was mostly a whole lot of nothin' in the region. * https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-arizona-farmer-on-how-to-grow-alfalfa-in-the/id1056200096?i=1000620995337 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-arizona-farmer-on-h... * https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/understanding-the-real-fight-over-water-in-arizona/id1056200096?i=1000621126694 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/understanding-the-real... Then folks decided that building large population centres in the middle of the desert was a good idea, and here we are. It should also be noted that Native Americans were also living and farming before white settlers arrived: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix,_Arizona#Early_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix,_Arizona#Early_history Though it's not like having large civilizations living in a desert is unique to the American (South-)West: see Mesopotamia and Egypt. They're just usually huddle around rivers.
- mjhay 3y ago
  There's massive population in the desert now, but that's not where the water is going. The vast majority of water is used by agriculture, which has also expanded massively in the same time frame. It's a red herring that natives and early settlers farmed in the same areas - the water they used is nothing compared to modern agriculture. Efficient water usage (e.g. drip irrigation) and not growing comically unsuitable crops like alfalfa would solve this problem, even in the face of climate change.
  - ticviking 3y ago
    The point is that there was enough water in the desert until people decided building massive retirement communities in the desert was a good idea.
    - mjhay 3y ago
      That's simply not true. The retirement communities simply aren't why the water shortage is happening. It's agriculture, not residential use. The water usage numbers are well known. You're just assuming that population growth must have caused the water shortage, while ignoring the much greater increases in agricultural usage over the same timeframe.
      - peteradio 3y ago
        The reason for the complaining is the population not the farmers. Why do you think they built the retirement communities in the desert? That's right! The land was gobsmackingly cheap! Why? Because the land was reeeeeeally shitty because the water sources were so poor! Would you be so defensive of the residents if this was Florida coast?
        mjhay 3y ago
        This is really quite simple: farmers use the vast majority of the water. Residential use is small in comparison. We're talking about water. Land use is only indirectly related. It's illogical on its face to say that the main problem is residential use when farming uses vastly more.
hot_gril 3y ago
Maybe there's a market-based solution that works well for them too. Let them keep the water rights, but also let them resell the water. It's probably worth more to someone else. I'm sure there's some obstacle to that too.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  This seems like a great solution. The only issue I could see is that this doesn't solve nature conservation issues were rivers and creeks will run entirely dry and all wildlife dies. Maybe we can solve this by buying a portion of the water to keep it running in the stream.
- naijaboiler 3y ago
  Not comparing agriculture to slavery. But people made this private property rights for slavery too. Sometimes wrong is just wrong. Fuck your rights. Wasting scarce water in a desert to grow unsuitable plants because your grandfather bought some cheap water rights is just wrong.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    If the plants are so unsuitable, then it'll be more profitable to sell the water than it is to grow the plants. And idk what any of this has to do with slavery, especially in CA, but fortunately the law does uphold private property rights.
  - runeks 3y ago
    I think you are making a comparison to slavery, which is not relevant because no one is suggesting that it's okay to own another human being.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Water rights in california are so entrenched that taking them away from farmers would certainly lead to massive court battles and probably many billions in takings clause payments. There's just no political will for that when combined with the pr/media battle the farmers will put up.