Hacker News Reader

> I live on a river, and we can’t swim after a heavy rain because of all the crap washed into the river from upstream farms. If I had property rights in the water, I could sue those farmers, and the price of food would rise to reflect the externalities of farming.

This is a thought-provoking argument. But if you had property rights, could you not also restrict access to the river so that no one else could swim on it? And what if you don't care to swim in your river but are fine with accepting upstream pollution in exchange for payment from the polluters? What if a big agro-conglomerate simply buys the river?

It seems to me that key to the traditional riperian doctrine you cite is not property rights so much as the legal regulation:

> property owners cannot impair the quality of water flowing through their land

If water quality must be maintained, what does it matter whether it is individual property owners or the EPA taking up the cause? If we can imagine a future where riperian doctrines could be retightened to strengthen the rights of downstream property owners, why not imagine one where a properly managed and funded state or federal agency takes responsibility?

> why not imagine one where a properly managed and funded state or federal agency takes responsibility?

Why bother? Existing property law should be enough. If you poison water on my property, you pay me to make things right.

There’s no need for any government involvement besides civil courts, and investigative bodies (FBI, local detectives, etc).

In practice these property owners don’t really believe in private property. They think they can just dump contaminants onto other people’s property because containment is inconvenient.

It’s not a consistent moral position and their time is coming. There will be a reckoning and they will (financially) pay for their crimes. The arc of the law is long but bends towards justice.

Don’t get me started on the upcoming resolution of Native American and chattel slave property rights, which are as yet largely unadjudicated. Most (not all) property in this country was illegally seized, and he courts have yet to rule on the true ownership of most of those plots.

what does it matter whether it is individual property owners or the EPA taking up the cause

Because, as you can see, the EPA is subject to the whims of politics and will wax and wane in effectiveness. Property rights, however, will be consistently effective.

Wikipedia on "Riparian doctrine" indicates it's a limited and specialized form of property rights.

> Under the riparian principle, all landowners whose properties adjoin a body of water have the right to make reasonable use of it as it flows through or over their properties. If there is not enough water to satisfy all users, allotments are generally fixed in proportion to frontage on the water source. These rights cannot be sold or transferred other than with the adjoining land and only in reasonable quantities associated with that land. The water cannot be transferred out of the watershed without due consideration as to the rights of the downstream riparian landowners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_water_rights

How can you just ignore the water rights system in the American West? It's half the country and really has allowed abuses.

The article refers to the "traditional Western view" to set up an argument about how the "Western view" has failed and we need to turn to "indigenous views of nature." But it completely mischaracterizes the "traditional Western view." The western U.S.'s system is really neither here nor there, since it does not represent the "traditional western view" of water rights.

How has it allowed abuses? In the American west, water rights are property rights and there is clear ownership to water.

The lower Snake River dams were put up on a river held sacred by indigenous tribes, devastating salmon spawning, which the tribes and at least one species of orca relied on for food.

I'd say that's abuse stemming from treating water as property.

Back in the mid 1800's a mine started polluting a drinking river somewhere above Denver. Suit was brought, and the mine said "yeah we are responsible but it would be too burdensome to not pollute the river". Plantiffs lost. Legal intricacies aside, always seemed like a failure of the system to me, that they could do so with such impunity.

It is property rights. Note that you only have any say because you live beside/near the river. People who dont own/rent land, or who live far away, get no say. The farmers can dump into the river (runoff) because they farm land near to it. Other farmers further away cannot truck waste to the river. Local farmers can use river water but outsiders cannot back trucks up and haul away river water. It is all local. It is all tied to property rights in land. A true commons would have all people, including tourists, given equal say.

Property rights haven't stopped airports near residential housing, loud music or all those software developers moving into the neighborhood.

There is nothing to suggest that with treating water like property we wouldn't also end up at the same kind of tradeoffs, pollution legal limits or "allowances" where some ill defined external influence infringes on your similarly ill defined property rights.

But property rights do help people avoid many problems that homeless people have to deal with.

>I’m going to leave out the west coast, which has a nutso way of doing things.

Just for interest, could you elaborate? How does the West Coast (of the US, I assume you mean) do things?

Water right, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_right

In California at least, there are two conflicting doctrines. They use the English common law riparian rule mentioned above alongside a doctrine of "first come, first served." It gets quite complicated.

A lot of water rights stuff was hashed out in Fresno County, which has a rich and interesting history.

Perhaps that’s the thing. The commons should be recognized as more than that. In my opinion property should be seen as an agreement with the commons, you rent property to make it private, and you at liabale to the commons for damages made to it.

"If I had property rights in the water, I could sue those farmers" What I love about libertarians is that they are forever optimist about their place in the future social order.

If water property rights were more explicit and the OP didn't gain property rights in the water as part of his/her house purchase, then the house's purchase price would have had to be much, much cheaper than it doubtless was.

Right but this change occurred during the industrial revolution and also is sanctioned by the court. So either the house was purchased pre industrial revolution (so part of a historical context) or more recently. If it was purchased more recently then OP did pay for the new version of the water rights not the old ones. Second OP seems to think that the courts would settle in his favor but the very court that would do this is also the court that has weakened the water rights down stream. My original comment is simply a recognition of the pattern in which Libertarians tend to naively see a future of property and civil suits as ending up with them in the favorable position. Have I addressed your response?

You’re missing the point, which is that courts were able to weaken rights to downstream water quality because they were not property rights. Someone could leave a box on my lawn, and I could sue and get them to take it off my lawn. It doesn’t matter if that someone is my neighbor, or Haliburton. Clear, well-defined property rights are enforceable.

But when it comes to the environment, there are no property rights. Just loosey-goosey balancing of everyone’s needs to access the commons. And it leads to results exactly the opposite of what you conjecture: when it comes to water, courts and policymakers keep siding with farmers over bigger and more well funded industries/landowners. Here in Maryland, crabbing/farming has huge influence on environmental policy, despite making up a tiny fraction of the economy (just 2%).

Yes but as you clearly stated the law was "strict" before that they could not impair water quality, yet over the course of time the courts changed that. I understand the notion of converting everything to private property and having property rights infringements as being the mechanism for enhanced stewardship. However in such a system all matters are then resolved in a civil court. Perhaps I dont understand how the court system works well enough but I would argue that there is a tendency for those who can afford good council to be victorious.

Now given the historical context it sounds like you dont actually have a right to sue for water contamination. If you were suddenly granted this right it would constitute an unearned reward as the existing property doesnt contain those rights. So if this were to change I think it would make sense that you pay for this new right and thereby the price of food would decrease.

Finally I would agree that it is "loosey-goosey" the way the commons is today. However this is because there is now no concept of the public good because the world has entered zero sum dynamics. Peter Thiel explains this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDkhfm6CYjE&feature=youtu.be...

The metaphorical pie doesn't size itself by its own accord or by some nebulous, external, godlike forces. Oddly enough, it grows when we don't let ourselves be ruled by people who act competently on the (mistaken) belief that wealth is inherently zero-sum. Sean Malone explains this here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iV18Xx5EkaE&t=5m19s

The pie grows as a result of economic surplus.