4 ms·

> But Kansas water rights are based on the “first in time — first in right” principle, which means the earliest users are given priority. It's not the "earlies

> But Kansas water rights are based on the “first in time — first in right” principle, which means the earliest users are given priority. It's not the "earliest users", but the earliest plot of land, municipality, et cetera that gets priority. You can stake your claim and transfer it from what I can tell. I honestly don't understand how this doesn't fall afoul of the Article 1, Section 10 Titles of Nobility clause. I asked a lawyer who wrote about this clause once in an email and he thought it odd to think that this is a violation of the Titles of Nobility clause. But shouldn't any heritable and transferable privilege to a public good be considered a "title of nobility"?

btilly 2y ago
What Title do you think has been granted by having a particular property right tied to a particular piece of property?
- anonymouskimmer 2y ago
  Something equivalent to manorial lordship. The title itself would be "senior water rights holder". The right granted by this heritable privilege is the right to first service. A first service which may result in an inferior holder of water rights not getting any water at all. It's important to note that, at least some, constitutional scholars see a focus on an actual "title" as beside the point. A state can call Michael Jackson the "King of Pop" without violating the clause because this title does not actually grant noble privilege in any way. It's just a name. However granting a heritable privilege that is not available to anyone meeting a similar, non-heritable requirement (such as a driver's license, which is theoretically equally available to all), does violate the titles of nobility clauses even if no actual "title" is granted with it. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C8-2/ALDE_00013204/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C8-2/...
  - lazide 2y ago
    The reason why the lawyer looked at you strange is because if you applied that rule it would literally break all property rights, everywhere in the US. So of course no court is going to apply it that way. Since property can always be inherited, and ownership of property confers rights. None of this involves ‘nobility’ (necessarily) either.
    - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
      Property rights are not rights to a common resource. Some mineral rights can be, but management of mineral rights (including gas) commonly fall under government supervision with any benefits (i.e. money) of use of the rights apportioned appropriately among all rights holders. Water rights, with seniority, are not so apportioned. It's this senior right privilege, that is granted exclusively by the state, that I'm claiming is the title of nobility.
      - vundercind 2y ago
        > Property rights are not rights to a common resource. You’re disagreeing with John Locke, among others, here.
        anonymouskimmer 2y ago
        I am not an economist. Yes, common resources such as water are rivalrous, and thus not public goods, but forgive me for not having the full vocabulary that a student of economics and privileges would. You should be understanding the points I'm making here as I believe I've highlighted what I think is salient. Others can disagree with whether these points are indeed salient, but they (and you) should at least basically understand the point I am trying to make. I assume John Locke would understand, as he was alive during the passing of the Tenures Abolition Act of 1660.
        lazide 2y ago
        Naturally (as in without rules or laws), most water is very much a public good. Think ‘river’ or ‘lake’. Anyone can go up to them and draw water from them. Wells and aquifers can be a bit more complicated, but aren’t that different when you get down to it, they just require some equipment to do the same thing. The closest equivalent would be someone needing to use a 4x truck to drive to the lake to get water. Same with land - anyone can just walk to them and start using them. Beyond what you can personally, physically control at any one moment anyway, which is pretty limited. What makes them NOT public is gov’t granted monopolies and rules. Like property rights. Society enforced restrictions, which means even if you’re not physically there guarding it 24/7 it can still be ‘yours’. Examples of natural private property would be something like your own body parts, or things in your possession, or land you are currently standing on, or things in the contents of your mind.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    > Something equivalent to manorial lordship. A manor lord is not a noble. Functionally speaking, people like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, who held large estates, would have been roughly equivalent in stature to a manor lord, or what was by that time a gentleman. They would have been eligible to vote in, or be a member of, the House of Commons, but not the House of Lords. In general, the goal of the Titles and Nobility clause is to foreclose the possibility of an American peerage. It is worth noting that there is a very important difference between a title of nobility and title to property rights. Were I an English peer, I would have no right to decide who should inherit my title upon my death (or even before then); the title's inheritance is strictly decided by the monarch. But for property, I can generally subdivide the property at will, and even grant other people the property or use thereof subject to almost whatever constraints I can put on it (this is where things like the rule against perpetuities come in). Water rights are property rights, not titles of nobility, and it's not even a close question.
    - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
      > But for property, I can generally subdivide the property at will From what I recently read, subinfeudation of a manorial property (lesser baron) was pretty much banned in 1290 with the Quia Emptores statute. After passage of the law they could only transfer the right entirely. A manor lord is a lesser noble, just like a knight, just not a peerage noble. The ability to subdivide or lease out water rights is limited in Kansas according to certain laws. And regardless, it's the heritable senior right to this shared resource that certain holders have, that others with equally sized farms or populations cannot claim, that I'm calling a noble entitlement.
    - skhunted 2y ago
      From the Wikipedia article on usufruct. Thomas Jefferson famously wrote in 1789 that "Earth belongs – in usufruct – to the living." Jefferson's metaphor means that, like a usufructuary, human beings have the right to use the earth for their own benefit and derive profit from it, but only to the extent that their actions do not impoverish the earth's bounty for future generations. I very much agree with Jefferson’s views on this matter.
- cyanydeez 2y ago
  Its the right to withdraw water, which isnt static
doctorpangloss 2y ago
> Article 1, Section 10 Titles of Nobility clause It's an intriguing idea. Now spend even one minute thinking deeply about the Equal Protection Clause, and drown in sorrow.

btilly 2y ago

What Title do you think has been granted by having a particular property right tied to a particular piece of property?

anonymouskimmer 2y ago
Something equivalent to manorial lordship. The title itself would be "senior water rights holder". The right granted by this heritable privilege is the right to first service. A first service which may result in an inferior holder of water rights not getting any water at all. It's important to note that, at least some, constitutional scholars see a focus on an actual "title" as beside the point. A state can call Michael Jackson the "King of Pop" without violating the clause because this title does not actually grant noble privilege in any way. It's just a name. However granting a heritable privilege that is not available to anyone meeting a similar, non-heritable requirement (such as a driver's license, which is theoretically equally available to all), does violate the titles of nobility clauses even if no actual "title" is granted with it. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C8-2/ALDE_00013204/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C8-2/...
- lazide 2y ago
  The reason why the lawyer looked at you strange is because if you applied that rule it would literally break all property rights, everywhere in the US. So of course no court is going to apply it that way. Since property can always be inherited, and ownership of property confers rights. None of this involves ‘nobility’ (necessarily) either.
  - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
    Property rights are not rights to a common resource. Some mineral rights can be, but management of mineral rights (including gas) commonly fall under government supervision with any benefits (i.e. money) of use of the rights apportioned appropriately among all rights holders. Water rights, with seniority, are not so apportioned. It's this senior right privilege, that is granted exclusively by the state, that I'm claiming is the title of nobility.
    - vundercind 2y ago
      > Property rights are not rights to a common resource. You’re disagreeing with John Locke, among others, here.
      - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
        I am not an economist. Yes, common resources such as water are rivalrous, and thus not public goods, but forgive me for not having the full vocabulary that a student of economics and privileges would. You should be understanding the points I'm making here as I believe I've highlighted what I think is salient. Others can disagree with whether these points are indeed salient, but they (and you) should at least basically understand the point I am trying to make. I assume John Locke would understand, as he was alive during the passing of the Tenures Abolition Act of 1660.
        lazide 2y ago
        Naturally (as in without rules or laws), most water is very much a public good. Think ‘river’ or ‘lake’. Anyone can go up to them and draw water from them. Wells and aquifers can be a bit more complicated, but aren’t that different when you get down to it, they just require some equipment to do the same thing. The closest equivalent would be someone needing to use a 4x truck to drive to the lake to get water. Same with land - anyone can just walk to them and start using them. Beyond what you can personally, physically control at any one moment anyway, which is pretty limited. What makes them NOT public is gov’t granted monopolies and rules. Like property rights. Society enforced restrictions, which means even if you’re not physically there guarding it 24/7 it can still be ‘yours’. Examples of natural private property would be something like your own body parts, or things in your possession, or land you are currently standing on, or things in the contents of your mind.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  > Something equivalent to manorial lordship. A manor lord is not a noble. Functionally speaking, people like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, who held large estates, would have been roughly equivalent in stature to a manor lord, or what was by that time a gentleman. They would have been eligible to vote in, or be a member of, the House of Commons, but not the House of Lords. In general, the goal of the Titles and Nobility clause is to foreclose the possibility of an American peerage. It is worth noting that there is a very important difference between a title of nobility and title to property rights. Were I an English peer, I would have no right to decide who should inherit my title upon my death (or even before then); the title's inheritance is strictly decided by the monarch. But for property, I can generally subdivide the property at will, and even grant other people the property or use thereof subject to almost whatever constraints I can put on it (this is where things like the rule against perpetuities come in). Water rights are property rights, not titles of nobility, and it's not even a close question.
  - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
    > But for property, I can generally subdivide the property at will From what I recently read, subinfeudation of a manorial property (lesser baron) was pretty much banned in 1290 with the Quia Emptores statute. After passage of the law they could only transfer the right entirely. A manor lord is a lesser noble, just like a knight, just not a peerage noble. The ability to subdivide or lease out water rights is limited in Kansas according to certain laws. And regardless, it's the heritable senior right to this shared resource that certain holders have, that others with equally sized farms or populations cannot claim, that I'm calling a noble entitlement.
  - skhunted 2y ago
    From the Wikipedia article on usufruct. Thomas Jefferson famously wrote in 1789 that "Earth belongs – in usufruct – to the living." Jefferson's metaphor means that, like a usufructuary, human beings have the right to use the earth for their own benefit and derive profit from it, but only to the extent that their actions do not impoverish the earth's bounty for future generations. I very much agree with Jefferson’s views on this matter.
cyanydeez 2y ago
Its the right to withdraw water, which isnt static

doctorpangloss 2y ago

> Article 1, Section 10 Titles of Nobility clause It's an intriguing idea. Now spend even one minute thinking deeply about the Equal Protection Clause, and drown in sorrow.