4 ms·

I'm not sure if people realize this, but major corporations have been (and continue to) focus on concentrating their power to own access to and distribution/sal

I'm not sure if people realize this, but major corporations have been (and continue to) focus on concentrating their power to own access to and distribution/sales of fresh water in the US, as a business strategy. They are actively betting on the water running out and planning long term to control your water. You can't live without fresh water, so it's not like you're not going to pay the exorbitant prices they'll be able to charge when it really starts getting tight.

deadmutex 3y ago
Sounds risky. Actively betting against RO not getting more efficient before water supplies dwindle down to the level mentioned in the comment
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  Also betting that municipalities can't/won't just pull an eminent domain to regain access to the water. Honestly it sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. I'm sure companies are buying rights to water, but I suspect it's for straightforward near term interests, like, say, Poland Spring's owners buying water rights so they can sell bottles of water - not because they think they will be our overlords in 20 years or whatever.
  - melagonster 3y ago
    in another side, this same as people/companies spending money in real estate market, they trust they can earn money in future.
  - throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
    You underestimate the power of corporations, and the logistical and political difficulty of supplanting them. I receive internal company newsletters that talk about the need to get more water contracts due to climate change and the opportunities/competition ahead. It's not conspiracy, it's commerce. Like real estate, you buy it now when it's cheap because you predict it'll be worth a fortune in a decade or two.
    - snowwrestler 3y ago
      What’s the name of the company? Contracts with whom?
  - demondemidi 3y ago
    > not because they think they will be our overlords in 20 years or whatever. Isn’t that what fruit companies like delmonte did to Central America in the mid 20th century? Seizing all of the farmland with the support of the government to grow fruit for Americans?
    - knightofmars 3y ago
      The CIA worked to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala to protect the interests of United Fruit Company (now Chiquita Banana). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
  - quickthrowman 3y ago
    > Also betting that municipalities can't/won't just pull an eminent domain to regain access to the water. They can’t just seize the water rights, they would have to purchase them at fair market value. Land with perpetual water rights happen to be worth *a lot* of money, which is why there haven’t been more government entities buying out current holders of water rights.
    - oh_sigh 3y ago
      Step 1: Announce water rights will soon be eminent-domained Step 2: Let market for these properties crash Step 3: Buy at FMV
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 3y ago
Not just in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War
- fakedang 3y ago
  Fun fact, while we learnt about the Bolivian Water War in India, we were never told that after the exit of the international consortium, about half the population of Cochabamba continue to lack access to water, while those who do have only intermittent supply. Meanwhile, SEMAPA, the government entity at the center of the protests, has a budget of only $5 million, which renders them unable to expand or revamp the current water supply network.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    It's not a fun fact. Miracles don't happen. But what is a fact is that the World Bank fucked up terribly by more or less blaming the poor for being poor and putting a bunch of capitalists in charge of the water supply in a way that was bound to escalate. The problem with privatization is that it tends to turn into a monopoly that extracts a toll from those worst positioned to bear the burden. That of course doesn't change if you let them to rot. What should have happened instead is that the world bank should have helped to finance the new system as a way to make up for their previous disastrous handling of the situation. How they would have done that in light of corruption and local graft is another problem entirely. You can't just take 20% of people's meager income (more than they spend on food) for a first level requirement like clean water. That's the sort of infrastructure that the world bank exists to bankroll, once the necessities are taken care of a society has a much better chance to lift itself from poverty.
    - fakedang 3y ago
      I'm not denying your PoV. Water is a basic necessity and shouldn't be charged a king's ransom for. > What should have happened instead is that the world bank should have helped to finance the new system as a way to make up for their previous disastrous handling of the situation. But does the World Bank even do that kind of financing? They and the IMF seem only intent on financing assured projects in developed countries or projects in developing countries which simply siphon money into politicians' pockets, with their tacit knowledge. That was part of the motivation behind Asian Investment Bank, and the other Chinese propped competitors. My point was that in spite of the "revolution" succeeding, and in spite of the revolutionary leaders taking charge of power for a record number of years, the town continues to suffer from the lack of water.
luis_cho 3y ago
Michael Burry, one of the guys that shorted the house market in 2008, started to invest in water since 2013 From Wiki: "In 2013, Burry reopened his hedge fund, this time called Scion Asset Management, filing reports as an exempt reporting adviser (ERA) active in the state of California and approved by the SEC.[19] He has focused much of his attention on investing in water, gold, and farm land. He has said, "Fresh, clean water cannot be taken for granted. And it is not—water is political, and litigious."[20]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Burry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Burry
- Seattle3503 3y ago
  Maybe someone else can find the source, but I believe Burry had since exited all of his water based investments.
- jjallen 3y ago
  Seems like he was pretty early in this one. As Warren Buffett has said “being too early to something is the same as being wrong about it” or something along those lines
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
I truly wonder why some municipalities are paying huge fees to private water-rights holders when the Takings clause just says: > nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Certainly it is "just" to simply pay what the private landholder originally paid for the land that carries with it the water rights?
- ejb999 3y ago
  paying what someone 'originally paid' for it? That won't fly - someone may have bought a valuable asset 50 years ago that is now worth 100X what they paid for it - only giving them what they paid for it can hardly be called 'just compensation' and I suspect most all courts would agree.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    I'm talking about speculators engaged in predatory flipping (and was also assuming adjusting for inflation). Water rights speculation has apparently only been going on in Arizona for around 30 years. While some of this speculation may be net beneficial (use of recharge areas to recharge ground water), others just seem speculative and aimed at making a premium when municipalities are eventually forced to buy.
- appleskeptic 3y ago
  “just compensation” = market value
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Yeah, that does seem to be the legal definition of the term. It just seems problematic for the taxpayer in markets with strong speculation.

deadmutex 3y ago

Sounds risky. Actively betting against RO not getting more efficient before water supplies dwindle down to the level mentioned in the comment

oh_sigh 3y ago
Also betting that municipalities can't/won't just pull an eminent domain to regain access to the water. Honestly it sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. I'm sure companies are buying rights to water, but I suspect it's for straightforward near term interests, like, say, Poland Spring's owners buying water rights so they can sell bottles of water - not because they think they will be our overlords in 20 years or whatever.
- melagonster 3y ago
  in another side, this same as people/companies spending money in real estate market, they trust they can earn money in future.
- throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
  You underestimate the power of corporations, and the logistical and political difficulty of supplanting them. I receive internal company newsletters that talk about the need to get more water contracts due to climate change and the opportunities/competition ahead. It's not conspiracy, it's commerce. Like real estate, you buy it now when it's cheap because you predict it'll be worth a fortune in a decade or two.
  - snowwrestler 3y ago
    What’s the name of the company? Contracts with whom?
- demondemidi 3y ago
  > not because they think they will be our overlords in 20 years or whatever. Isn’t that what fruit companies like delmonte did to Central America in the mid 20th century? Seizing all of the farmland with the support of the government to grow fruit for Americans?
  - knightofmars 3y ago
    The CIA worked to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala to protect the interests of United Fruit Company (now Chiquita Banana). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
- quickthrowman 3y ago
  > Also betting that municipalities can't/won't just pull an eminent domain to regain access to the water. They can’t just seize the water rights, they would have to purchase them at fair market value. Land with perpetual water rights happen to be worth *a lot* of money, which is why there haven’t been more government entities buying out current holders of water rights.
  - oh_sigh 3y ago
    Step 1: Announce water rights will soon be eminent-domained Step 2: Let market for these properties crash Step 3: Buy at FMV
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jacquesm 3y ago

Not just in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War

fakedang 3y ago
Fun fact, while we learnt about the Bolivian Water War in India, we were never told that after the exit of the international consortium, about half the population of Cochabamba continue to lack access to water, while those who do have only intermittent supply. Meanwhile, SEMAPA, the government entity at the center of the protests, has a budget of only $5 million, which renders them unable to expand or revamp the current water supply network.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  It's not a fun fact. Miracles don't happen. But what is a fact is that the World Bank fucked up terribly by more or less blaming the poor for being poor and putting a bunch of capitalists in charge of the water supply in a way that was bound to escalate. The problem with privatization is that it tends to turn into a monopoly that extracts a toll from those worst positioned to bear the burden. That of course doesn't change if you let them to rot. What should have happened instead is that the world bank should have helped to finance the new system as a way to make up for their previous disastrous handling of the situation. How they would have done that in light of corruption and local graft is another problem entirely. You can't just take 20% of people's meager income (more than they spend on food) for a first level requirement like clean water. That's the sort of infrastructure that the world bank exists to bankroll, once the necessities are taken care of a society has a much better chance to lift itself from poverty.
  - fakedang 3y ago
    I'm not denying your PoV. Water is a basic necessity and shouldn't be charged a king's ransom for. > What should have happened instead is that the world bank should have helped to finance the new system as a way to make up for their previous disastrous handling of the situation. But does the World Bank even do that kind of financing? They and the IMF seem only intent on financing assured projects in developed countries or projects in developing countries which simply siphon money into politicians' pockets, with their tacit knowledge. That was part of the motivation behind Asian Investment Bank, and the other Chinese propped competitors. My point was that in spite of the "revolution" succeeding, and in spite of the revolutionary leaders taking charge of power for a record number of years, the town continues to suffer from the lack of water.

luis_cho 3y ago

Michael Burry, one of the guys that shorted the house market in 2008, started to invest in water since 2013 From Wiki: "In 2013, Burry reopened his hedge fund, this time called Scion Asset Management, filing reports as an exempt reporting adviser (ERA) active in the state of California and approved by the SEC.[19] He has focused much of his attention on investing in water, gold, and farm land. He has said, "Fresh, clean water cannot be taken for granted. And it is not—water is political, and litigious."[20]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Burry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Burry

Seattle3503 3y ago
Maybe someone else can find the source, but I believe Burry had since exited all of his water based investments.
jjallen 3y ago
Seems like he was pretty early in this one. As Warren Buffett has said “being too early to something is the same as being wrong about it” or something along those lines

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

I truly wonder why some municipalities are paying huge fees to private water-rights holders when the Takings clause just says: > nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Certainly it is "just" to simply pay what the private landholder originally paid for the land that carries with it the water rights?

ejb999 3y ago
paying what someone 'originally paid' for it? That won't fly - someone may have bought a valuable asset 50 years ago that is now worth 100X what they paid for it - only giving them what they paid for it can hardly be called 'just compensation' and I suspect most all courts would agree.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  I'm talking about speculators engaged in predatory flipping (and was also assuming adjusting for inflation). Water rights speculation has apparently only been going on in Arizona for around 30 years. While some of this speculation may be net beneficial (use of recharge areas to recharge ground water), others just seem speculative and aimed at making a premium when municipalities are eventually forced to buy.
appleskeptic 3y ago
“just compensation” = market value
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Yeah, that does seem to be the legal definition of the term. It just seems problematic for the taxpayer in markets with strong speculation.