Hacker News Reader

Comment by bb88 | Hacker News Reader

If you look at water usage in Nevada, 75% of it goes to agriculture [1]. Agriculture provides a lot of jobs and food. Unfortunately the resources are no longer there. You can eliminate landscaping (yards, golf courses, las vegas fountains, etc), but it still won't make a dent in the water use.

It's not just Nevada, but Nevada is the poster child here for everything that's gone wrong with water use.

So something's gotta give. And it turns out that farming in deserts may not have been the best use of the land (or water).

[1] https://extension.unr.edu/publication.aspx?PubID=4764

View on HN

The Desert Land Act under which a lot of desert land was claimed (and, the only remaining way I know of state land can still privately be claimed) only gave it to you if you established irrigation and agriculture.

The government basically asked for it, and then made it the only way to get much of the land. And now of course, many heads in government now complaining about the evil private land owner who did the thing the government asked for and precondition.

Yay, they own the land. A hundred plus years later, I don't see why the descendants (or corporate owner) should have the same water rights now after things have changed. Don't strip them of the land...but something has to give.

Yes that could be done via eminent domain of their water rights. The only note would be that since the value of especially the more rural desert land is tied almost completely to acreage times water rights per acre, it's basically a full buyout of the entire non-residential rural desert due to the takings clause. I don't know how much it'll cost, but it will be a lot.

>A hundred plus years later

I know of people still investing large sums today to claim under the Desert Land Act. It's still active. They need to establish irrigation and usually drill/share a well (maybe hauling could work but you have to show it's economically viable), and establish that over a multi year proof process the viability of the land. Just harder than it used to be. So to be clear it might be someone from yesterday, although it's just less common. I'm not sure if the takings clause would cover them though, as they don't technically own it until the proof process is complete, so for them it'd probably merely just be a total loss.

> water rights per acre

Is that actually taken into account in a taking? I haven’t thought about this stuff in decades, and I know there is some weirdness with regulatory takings.

Another way to frame the question: if the government just changes the water rights per acre, does that itself trigger the takings clause?

It depends on the type of water right (there are many kinds). The State has the ability to effectively recall some water rights. True titled rights would be a taking.

The takings issue is why I believe that rather than invoking eminent domain, the CA government should institute a Uniform Water Use Tax, whose aim is to establish a single price for any use of water (charged per gallon/acre foot) in the state. The cost of acquiring the water used can then be claimed as a credit against the Uniform Water Use Tax.

This respects water rights while aligning incentives to conserve water and as a bonus establishes a more even playing field in the agricultural sector, enhancing competition and reducing the unjust profits of the Resnicks' shady water empire.

Nevada gets 4% of the water in the first place. Almost all of that 4% goes to Ag and mining as you said. The things people use as "the poster child" like fountains and golf courses are rounding errors.

I’m not sure why Nevada is always brought up negatively when mentioning CO river usage but Nevada uses the least amount of water out of all states:

https://www.snwa.com/water-resources/where-water-comes-from/...

https://www.snwa.com/assets/images/colorado-river-allocation...

For indoor usage in Las Vegas for example, it recycles 99% of it:

https://lvgea.org/water/

Using water in the desert is a problem, but point to CA or AZ as poster children of abuse for that

Here's a question, why are we putting all those resources and efforts into farming in a desert?

Desert land was cheap. Water seemed plentiful and cheap. And back when the system was set up, doing that looked like "Progress".

Cows mostly.

Like 60-75% of all ag land in the US is to grow feed for cows. Mostly in dry environments. This is because the old water rights were distributed on a "use it or lose it" basis which encourages wasteful use.

In some desert areas there is no other use for the water because the aquifers are fragmented. People don't live there, you can't readily move the water to somewhere useful, and it won't flow anywhere useful on its own. Agriculture is a way to convert water into something easily transported.

This doesn't apply to many places but in the desert Mountain West this is often the case. Also, while it may seem surprising, a few crops really thrive in the high desert e.g. onions.

This is absolutely not the case when it comes to Nevada agriculture. They're moving water in from outside the state to feed ag for places where people do live.

> Here's a question, why are we putting all those resources and efforts into farming in a desert?

Because moving water to where the fertile land is is easier than vice versa. And because agriculture is the base on which civilization rests.

Ok so again, why move the water to dry relatively bio-inactive desert?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com