5 ms·

And there's a simple solution: eliminate water usage rights and charge everyone for water usage, based on the amount of water used. If some farmers purchased wa

And there's a simple solution: eliminate water usage rights and charge everyone for water usage, based on the amount of water used. If some farmers purchased water usage rights from the state (is that how it worked?), then the state should refund them, paying back the original purchase amount plus inflation. And then start charging them the same as everyone else for water. If farmers can grow alfalfa cheaply enough when the water isn't free, by being more efficient with water usage, then they will continue to do so because it will be profitable. If it's not profitable, then they'll stop growing alfalfa. We don't need to make laws about agriculture in particular; simply start charging people for the resources they use, and market forces will grind to dust anyone who uses resources inefficiently.

oceanplexian 3y ago
> And there's a simple solution: eliminate water usage rights and charge everyone for water usage, based on the amount of water used. If your great, great grandfather was a pioneer and moved into the SLC valley 150 years ago- a particularly harsh and rugged place, and then started a small farm that was perfectly sustainable, but then millions of transplants moved in, what exactly makes them so entitled to the water under your property? Sounds like theft to me.
- darth_avocado 3y ago
  If your great grandfather was growing alfa alfa to send it to cattle feed lots in Saudi Arabia all the while risking the lives of his fellow pioneers who lived next to him, he wasn't entitled to that water in the first place.
- 2020aj 3y ago
  And what about the Native Americans that lived there before that? etc.
  - oceanplexian 3y ago
    I don't disagree, Somewhat recently a Federal Judge ordered that the Navajo Nation wasn't entitled to the Colorado River that they had been using for thousands of years. This is what happens when the government steps in to redistribute a resource to who they "think" deserves it rather than to those who were historically entitled to it. Legalized theft, plain and simple.
    - idiotsecant 3y ago
      Ok, great. Let's undo all those peaky 'big gubmint' deals you dislike so much and return the land to it's original owners. You're on the side of small government and historical ownership claims, right? Hard to imagine a smaller government or more viable historical claim than the obvious one.
    - malcolmgreaves 3y ago
      I disagree: this is what happens when you have structural racism. Here, it’s either individuals stripping others of their long held traditions, property rights, and society. Or it’s an organized government transgressing. Less government wouldn’t prevent this outcome. A more just one that doesn’t ignore the rights of natives would.
- kredd 3y ago
  Your great, great grandfather probably died around the age of 40 before the transplants and modern society advanced the medicine. He would probably be in favour of living longer than dying early. I’m actually curious how people make arguments while referring to a completely different period of time with its own problems.
  - function_seven 3y ago
    I know this is a tangent, but it’s unlikely great grandpa only lived to 40. Even 100 years ago, someone who was 39 would be expected to live another 28 years on average. All those low life expectancy numbers were due to high infant- and childhood-mortality rates. That nitpick aside, yeah gramps’ prior claim should not be given the weight it has.
- gameoverhumans 3y ago
  So the descendents of someone who secured a deal based on a completely different socioeconomic context and then died over 100 years ago should be given priority over those who live today and those who live tomorrow? Sounds like theft to me.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    That's kind of how property rights work. So if you're not going to go full "property is theft", then you need to show why water rights are different from the right to, say, the land (or the minerals on the land, or the timber on the land, or...) And if you are going to go "property is theft", well, you're going to have to justify that with more than just the slogan itself, because it's a huge change, and the bigger the change the more justification you need for it. And you're going to have a hard sell, because people like owning stuff.
    - gameoverhumans 3y ago
      Well you got me, I'm one of those "property is theft" / "ACAB" nutjobs. But also, federal/state/municipal authorities do eminent seizure on private property all the time, when it is necessary for a larger public need. Forcing title holders to sell back their "water rights" and then putting them on level footing isn't that much different, is it?
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        No, but there's that whole "just compensation" bit. That's a perfectly valid route to go, but it might be pricey.
nradov 3y ago
That is hardly a simple solution. In most states, water rights weren't purchased from the state. They were granted and tied to property deeds. In some cases those actually predate statehood. In theory states could seize those water rights through eminent domain (or a similar process) but under the 5th Amendment the state would have to pay fair market value for this. That would be enormously expensive. States would have to raise taxes on everyone to fund that, which would be political suicide.
- polski-g 3y ago
  They don't need to seize the water rights. Just seize the land, rewrite the deed, then sell the land back on the market.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Are you trolling or are you really that ignorant of the law? There are no such legal loopholes to get around the 5th Amendment.
    - rho138 3y ago
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eminent_domain https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eminent_domain
      - coding123 3y ago
        Can you find something post internet?
kbutler 3y ago
In the western US, water rights generally derive from first historical productive use of the water. Older uses take precedence over later uses in case of low water years. So a farm (mine, factory, city) established in the 1800s has a right to use that amount of water before cities established later can take any water. These rights are transferable (sellable), so cities can purchase water rights from other holders. Note that downstream rights holders may have prior claim to water over upstream users. Water allocation rights are generally use-it-or-lose-it, so early water rights are incentivized to make even marginally productive use of their full allocation, rather than to leave it for other higher-value use.
ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
>eliminate water usage rights and charge everyone for water usage, based on the amount of water used. Didn't the Nestle CEO say something like this and everyone crucified him?
tzs 3y ago
That could actually get farmers to increase alfalfa production. Alfalfa water usage per acre is not much different than that of spinach, tomato, lettuce, wheat, or corn. As an aggregate it uses more water because (1) there is a lot of acreage of alfalfa, and (2) it can be grown nearly year around. Furthermore, its water efficiency (how much is produced per unit of water used) is high. If water costs go up some farmers might be able to make more money then by switching to alfalfa since it is more efficient.

oceanplexian 3y ago

> And there's a simple solution: eliminate water usage rights and charge everyone for water usage, based on the amount of water used. If your great, great grandfather was a pioneer and moved into the SLC valley 150 years ago- a particularly harsh and rugged place, and then started a small farm that was perfectly sustainable, but then millions of transplants moved in, what exactly makes them so entitled to the water under your property? Sounds like theft to me.

darth_avocado 3y ago
If your great grandfather was growing alfa alfa to send it to cattle feed lots in Saudi Arabia all the while risking the lives of his fellow pioneers who lived next to him, he wasn't entitled to that water in the first place.
2020aj 3y ago
And what about the Native Americans that lived there before that? etc.
- oceanplexian 3y ago
  I don't disagree, Somewhat recently a Federal Judge ordered that the Navajo Nation wasn't entitled to the Colorado River that they had been using for thousands of years. This is what happens when the government steps in to redistribute a resource to who they "think" deserves it rather than to those who were historically entitled to it. Legalized theft, plain and simple.
  - idiotsecant 3y ago
    Ok, great. Let's undo all those peaky 'big gubmint' deals you dislike so much and return the land to it's original owners. You're on the side of small government and historical ownership claims, right? Hard to imagine a smaller government or more viable historical claim than the obvious one.
  - malcolmgreaves 3y ago
    I disagree: this is what happens when you have structural racism. Here, it’s either individuals stripping others of their long held traditions, property rights, and society. Or it’s an organized government transgressing. Less government wouldn’t prevent this outcome. A more just one that doesn’t ignore the rights of natives would.
kredd 3y ago
Your great, great grandfather probably died around the age of 40 before the transplants and modern society advanced the medicine. He would probably be in favour of living longer than dying early. I’m actually curious how people make arguments while referring to a completely different period of time with its own problems.
- function_seven 3y ago
  I know this is a tangent, but it’s unlikely great grandpa only lived to 40. Even 100 years ago, someone who was 39 would be expected to live another 28 years on average. All those low life expectancy numbers were due to high infant- and childhood-mortality rates. That nitpick aside, yeah gramps’ prior claim should not be given the weight it has.
gameoverhumans 3y ago
So the descendents of someone who secured a deal based on a completely different socioeconomic context and then died over 100 years ago should be given priority over those who live today and those who live tomorrow? Sounds like theft to me.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  That's kind of how property rights work. So if you're not going to go full "property is theft", then you need to show why water rights are different from the right to, say, the land (or the minerals on the land, or the timber on the land, or...) And if you are going to go "property is theft", well, you're going to have to justify that with more than just the slogan itself, because it's a huge change, and the bigger the change the more justification you need for it. And you're going to have a hard sell, because people like owning stuff.
  - gameoverhumans 3y ago
    Well you got me, I'm one of those "property is theft" / "ACAB" nutjobs. But also, federal/state/municipal authorities do eminent seizure on private property all the time, when it is necessary for a larger public need. Forcing title holders to sell back their "water rights" and then putting them on level footing isn't that much different, is it?
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      No, but there's that whole "just compensation" bit. That's a perfectly valid route to go, but it might be pricey.

nradov 3y ago

That is hardly a simple solution. In most states, water rights weren't purchased from the state. They were granted and tied to property deeds. In some cases those actually predate statehood. In theory states could seize those water rights through eminent domain (or a similar process) but under the 5th Amendment the state would have to pay fair market value for this. That would be enormously expensive. States would have to raise taxes on everyone to fund that, which would be political suicide.

polski-g 3y ago
They don't need to seize the water rights. Just seize the land, rewrite the deed, then sell the land back on the market.
- nradov 3y ago
  Are you trolling or are you really that ignorant of the law? There are no such legal loopholes to get around the 5th Amendment.
  - rho138 3y ago
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eminent_domain https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eminent_domain
    - coding123 3y ago
      Can you find something post internet?

kbutler 3y ago

In the western US, water rights generally derive from first historical productive use of the water. Older uses take precedence over later uses in case of low water years. So a farm (mine, factory, city) established in the 1800s has a right to use that amount of water before cities established later can take any water. These rights are transferable (sellable), so cities can purchase water rights from other holders. Note that downstream rights holders may have prior claim to water over upstream users. Water allocation rights are generally use-it-or-lose-it, so early water rights are incentivized to make even marginally productive use of their full allocation, rather than to leave it for other higher-value use.

ThrowawayTestr 3y ago

>eliminate water usage rights and charge everyone for water usage, based on the amount of water used. Didn't the Nestle CEO say something like this and everyone crucified him?

tzs 3y ago

That could actually get farmers to increase alfalfa production. Alfalfa water usage per acre is not much different than that of spinach, tomato, lettuce, wheat, or corn. As an aggregate it uses more water because (1) there is a lot of acreage of alfalfa, and (2) it can be grown nearly year around. Furthermore, its water efficiency (how much is produced per unit of water used) is high. If water costs go up some farmers might be able to make more money then by switching to alfalfa since it is more efficient.