Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmyeet | Hacker News Reader

This isn't climate change. People try and make that argument by just looking at water levels. The water inflows are currently slightly lower than historical norms but honestly not by much. The big problem is ever-increasing consumption. Look at Figure 2 [1].

I'm glad to see California reject desalination here [2] because what that would do in essence is to further subsidize agriculture (who often don't pay for water at all) with expensive desalinated water.

California agriculture is simply going to have to adapt to less water-intensive agriculture. This may mean less agriculture overall. It's a matter of when not if.

[1]: https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/docs/finalreport/Colorad...

[2]: https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/12/us/california-water-desaliniz...

View on HN

The underpinning issue is existing water rights and the Fifth Amendment. California has already issued rights to use that water, and the Fifth Amendment says:

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

So we can't just remove access to the water without the state paying for it. That's going to be expensive. Especially since a lot of these rights are for perpetuity (i.e. the water rights are conferred by owning land next to the river, without a contract/permit that expires). How do you "justly" price an eternal supply of a scarce resource? Especially of a resource that could be priceless in the not-too-distant future.

It'll either take a constitutional amendment (with potentially wide-reaching consequences), or a lot of money and probably a decade or two of court cases. No businesses will willingly hand over their water rights when water is scarce enough the state is trying to claw it back.

There's an argument to be made that water should be treated as public good, like air, rather than as private property. Water rights are an abstraction, much like copyrights. If the concept of owning rights to water is doing more economic harm than good, it should be reconsidered.

????

The number of pre-1914 water rights (when california started doing water rights for all use) is very small, and any increase in use requires an new modern right regardless. They're not really relevant.

Post-1914 and non-riparian water rights are not "private property", they're leases. They're not just valid forever and the fifth amendment doesn't mean they're immune to modification.

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/doug-obegi/no-water-rights-ca-a...

Eminent Domain is how the 5th amendment is worked around. Also, declaring water to be a public good can assist.

No it's not. Eminent Domain still involves paying for the thing you're taking.

If my house is in the way of a planned freeway, they don't just kick me out and say "tough shit". They pay me.

That's the essence of the parent comment. What's the price for these water rights?

You're right. There's no way any judge will let California turn into a wasteland because "muh water rights". They will give them a reasonable amount and that will be that. I see lots of these cases coming up if the western United States drought doesn't relent soon.

> they don't just kick me out and say "tough shit". They pay me.

They do if they don't pay you, like what happened to folks in Louisiana or Texas.

That's not "working around" the 5th Amendment, it's ignoring it.

And if you're going to ignore the Constitution, you don't need Eminent Domain or anything else. You just ignore it.

What are you referring to in Louisiana and Texas?

Then institute a Use tax on water or a water recovery tax on goods produced based on the approximate number of gallons of water to produce the goods?

I heard the consultants working on this in a recent presentation propose creating a fund payed into by all farmers and then paying some farmers from that fund to fallow their fields.

Buying up the properties with senior water rights seems a lot cheaper than building new reservoirs, dams, etc. What's the value of these types of properties? How much cash flow can the owners possibly be making? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

So, it’s better to produce less agriculture and drive up prices (affecting mostly those least able to afford it) than just desalinate?

My understanding is that proposed desalination plants in CA were shut down because of NIMBYism. Better for people to starve, I guess.

We could have practically limitless energy with solar fields and nuclear plants, build canals, aqueducts and pipelines to transport and restore all the watersheds in the west while reducing sea levels, fix deforestation, and grow abundant food for everyone, but it just requires us to stop saying “NO” to _actual_ progress.

I don't think people are going to starve if California stops wasting water on almonds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com