13 ms·

The core problem is the treatment of water rights as property rights rather than government grants. Which is a relatively new problem, as the management of irri

The core problem is the treatment of water rights as property rights rather than government grants. Which is a relatively new problem, as the management of irrigation was one of the things governments were originally invented for.

_heimdall 2y ago
Water rights are full of gray area though. Should I have the right to capture and use rain that falls on my land, or does the government own that somehow? If I drill a well on my land, is that my water or the government's? If a river naturally flows through my land, is it my right to use that water or does the government regulate that as well? The early government projects for irrigation weren't quite the same. Building aqueducts is about moving water to a place that it doesn't naturally exist. Water rights are about saying who can use water that is already there.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  Aqueducts are closer to present day than to early governments. Traditional agricultural societies were dense villages and towns. The entire community typically shared the same water source. In areas that relied on rivers and wells, distributing the water fairly while ensuring community welfare was one of the primary functions of the town/village government. Modern issues arise from two concepts you mention in your second sentence: "the right" and "my land".
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I assumed the parent comment was referring to early water projects as in Roman aqueducts. The entire US system is based fundamentally on property rights. We absolutely could change that, but today we have property rights. That isn't really modern either, unless you are extending modernity back centuries to include feudal states with lords and kings owning all the land. Land rights come with very real problems, though I don't see how you get rid of them and still have anything resembling today's governments. If individuals didn't own land today the government would claim ownership over all of it, which they kind of do with property taxes and eminent domain but that's a whole different problem.

_heimdall 2y ago

Water rights are full of gray area though. Should I have the right to capture and use rain that falls on my land, or does the government own that somehow? If I drill a well on my land, is that my water or the government's? If a river naturally flows through my land, is it my right to use that water or does the government regulate that as well? The early government projects for irrigation weren't quite the same. Building aqueducts is about moving water to a place that it doesn't naturally exist. Water rights are about saying who can use water that is already there.

jltsiren 2y ago
Aqueducts are closer to present day than to early governments. Traditional agricultural societies were dense villages and towns. The entire community typically shared the same water source. In areas that relied on rivers and wells, distributing the water fairly while ensuring community welfare was one of the primary functions of the town/village government. Modern issues arise from two concepts you mention in your second sentence: "the right" and "my land".
- _heimdall 2y ago
  I assumed the parent comment was referring to early water projects as in Roman aqueducts. The entire US system is based fundamentally on property rights. We absolutely could change that, but today we have property rights. That isn't really modern either, unless you are extending modernity back centuries to include feudal states with lords and kings owning all the land. Land rights come with very real problems, though I don't see how you get rid of them and still have anything resembling today's governments. If individuals didn't own land today the government would claim ownership over all of it, which they kind of do with property taxes and eminent domain but that's a whole different problem.