5 ms·
My understanding is that right now Colorado River water rights are defined in terms of absolute volume. So when there isn't enough water to satisfy the water r
by schaefer 3y ago
My understanding is that right now Colorado River water rights are defined in terms of absolute volume. So when there isn't enough water to satisfy the water rights, it leads to conflict.
It seems like a natural alternative is to define water rights as being relative to the amount of water available in the river. that way water rights would scale with the drought.
but, I fully appreciate that I am a novice, and can appreciate that it's likely not that simple.
- voakbasda 3y agoOne big problem with implementing new ideas like yours — and like many potential solutions to problems with current laws — is quite simply: how do we get from here to there without effectively screwing over all of the current players in the game? And if you are willing to screw them over, why should they trust that they will not get screwed by the new scheme at some point?
- curiousgibbon 3y agoSome of the current players are already screwed. There is less water available than is desired. The government isn't supposed to come in and screw everything up they're supposed to spread the hurt around "fairly" or in some other way compatible with the national interest. This isn't some arbitrary reorganizing of water rights for political ends, there just isn't enough water in the American West for old ways to continue.