3 ms·
"People who bought houses and chose an off grid life in a water stressed area and did nothing to alleviate the situation, only add consumption." They paid mone
by nyeah 1y ago
"People who bought houses and chose an off grid life in a water stressed area and did nothing to alleviate the situation, only add consumption."
They paid money for the water.
- lokar 1y agoThey paid (over and over) for one time water allotments. The price of guaranteed access to water is much much higher, and they did not pay for it. It was probably not even for sale, and they should have known that. They are not entitled to anything.
- tshaddox 1y agoDo ordinary homeowners ever pay for guaranteed access to water? Surely not, right?
- lokar 1y agoYes, in a way. They live within the bounds of a water district, which itself has water rights. These districts limit use (or the growth in use) by passing rules on the use (limiting the watering of grass, for example), or (fairly often in some places) limiting new service hookups. They won't let you connect if they don't think they can secure the supply long term.
- barbazoo 1y agoNothing is "guaranteed", so no. People usually congregate where resources exist, that's often why towns are where they are, near water for example. Where I live for example, freshwater comes from a pretty stable water source. Paying the municipality to operate and maintain that is as close to "guaranteed" as it gets probably. Once the circumstances change, we'll have to adapt.
- lokar 1y agoWater law in the US southwest is wild. The right to flows of water, into the future, is treated as a private property right and is bought and sold. Municipal water systems normally acquire the rights (and arrange transport).
- qwertylicious 1y agoAs a homeowner I literally pay a fee every month to fund the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure that gets water to my home. If that water supply is cut off without valid reason, there is a complaint mechanism with the local utility commission where the issue can be heard and resolved. I also live in the municipality where my water is supplied, and therefore am represented by its government. Therefore I am both economically and politically invested in that infrastructure. Unfortunately none of this is true for the folks in this article. Is that a "guarantee"? No. Nothing is guaranteed. But it's far better than the arrangement these folks operated under.
- darth_avocado 1y agoThe arrangement they had with the town was closer to buying water at a gas station. You sort of assume it’s always going to be there, but one day it wasn’t because they stopped selling it.
- nyeah 1y agoThey knew they didn't have guaranteed access. It's in the article.
- darth_avocado 1y agoWell, what happens when 300 people move to a town where there’s only enough water for 100 people? Is just paying money enough?
- edoceo 1y agoIf money isn't solving the problem you're just not using enough. It's sad & true & and I hate it.
- usefulcat 1y ago"Fort Garland uses 120 acre-feet of water per year — that’s 120 acres covered by 1 foot of water. Sales to people in cisterns account for about 1 acre feet per year, Pacheco said. Revenue for the water sales to rural residents totaled $43,000 per year, about 15% of total revenue." Lack of water is not the problem here, especially now that the town's pump has been fixed.
- rpcope1 1y agoThere land did not come with any water rights (something you've got to ask about for any land out here not already hooked up to a metro water system), and thus you are entirely at the mercy of others and not guaranteed anything. Why you would ever choose to build/buy a home without some relatively senior water rights or a metered water connection is entirely beyond me.