Posted on 01/26/2008 10:53:22 AM PST by LibWhacker
Unappropriated groundwater: Yes and no. Private users could have filed on it, but the politicians and environmentalists have blocked the Desert Land Entry conversion of public lands to private lands to make beneficial use of the water - so private use of the water is restricted. So the water remains unappropriated until the SNWA comes along.
But then the SNWA, being very politically powerful, has changed the state law to allow them to file on unappropriated water, then not use it (which would be required of anyone else filing on the water). The SNWA then simply pays a fee and updates their filing - for years and years (in some cases, nearly two decades), even if they don’t develop the water rights. Anyone else has five years to use it or lose it.
Long story short: Harry Reid (and his clan), coupled with California land developers who have moved into Nevada, have used the power of the federal government to take water from entire counties.”
I think you are a little confused. What you described above is not the free market. It is socialism, or maybe a little more closely, fascism. The government uses its power to control producers and direct assets.
You call that a free market? What have you been smokin’?
Suffice to say, the free market bromides of “let the highest bidder win” are long-term economic disasters for both the private sector who has existing property rights and the taxpayers who have to clean up the mess decades after the fact. The “let the highest bidder win” is nothing but simplistic shorthand for “let the taxpayers of tomorrow put money in the pockets of real estate developers today.”
____________________________________________________
Actually, I grew up on a farm in Wisconsin, but we have plenty of water there.
What you are describing, though, is not a problem with having property rights in water, but actually the lack thereof. Real property rights would do away with the “city first” law.. They would have to pay for it.
As for real estate developers, they have generally had to pay for the land they use, except of course, where the government uses eminent domain and zoning laws to give select ones special privileges.
I’m going to go out on a limb here. Since the large metro areas built in the deserts suck up the most water, causing serious problems everywhere upstream, why not require the desert cities to harvest water from the Pacific Ocean. Plenty of fresh water there, just needs a little processing. Better get started building the plants. I think they should pay for the water they use rather than stealing other folks water, don’t you?
BTTT!
The property right is there. What isn’t there is an unconditional right to USE the property as you see fit, when you want to.
Let’s use an example between two farmers, since we both understand this (and sorry for the crack about not being a farmer - you’re just used to farming where the water falls out of the sky for free).
Let’s say you and I are farmers on a ditch irrigation system that is a diversion from a river. Let’s put aside something like the Colorado River as an example, since that’s an inter-state and highly complicated example. Let’s just pick a river that originates in the same state you and I own farms.
Let’s say you have “senior” water rights and I have “junior” water rights. Let’s also say that you’re downstream of where I am.
In a dry year, there will be a limited allocation of irrigation water. The seniority system says that you, because you hold senior water rights, get your allocation of water when there might not be enough for all the junior users to get water too. The law says that junior water rights holders must allow the water to “go on by” to you senior rights holders.
The property right is still there — the junior rights holders still hold an absolute property right for that water - when the water is available. These water rights can be bought and sold, and are taxed, just as any other real property is in western split-estate property law.
OK, so let’s use a real-world example to show how the cities use the “free market” idea to circumvent this:
Let’s say we’re still dealing with a river. Some city buys out the most junior water rights holder at the very end of a river. They then change the type of use from ag to municipal water use. The regulation (not the law) says that muni is a “higher” use than ag, and in short years, muni should have priority.
That was fine when the water law was written, when there were occasional shortages. The cities then abused this regulation and used far more than they’re legally permitted to (allowing rampant residential development) and then comes a dry year, there isn’t enough water to go around and the cities then wail and moan “Why, we can’t turn off water to all these people!” when if the law were enforced, that is exactly what would happen, because the cities:
a) abused the “higher” use to circumvent seniority of rights,
b) abused the law in that they permitted more development to occur than there was existing water rights in the city’s possession.
It is the combination of a & b that is causing de facto forfeiture of senior water rights. Cities all over the west have used this tactic to force senior water rights users to not be able to use water, which forces the rancher/farmer out of business, and then the city “helpfully” comes along with a lowball offer for a water right that the owner is not being allowed to use.
It is theft, clear and simple.
What is needed is a court case that says “Yes, you can turn off the water to residential and muni users, and yes, you will. Sorry Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but you’re going to have to pay to haul water into your new ticky-tacky developer-built house, because the fly-by-night politically connected developer from whom you bought your shoddy house built by illegal aliens didn’t secure water for your development - the city just thought they could bully every other water right holder with their taxpayer-funded lawyers.”
We here in Nevada are now requiring developers to bring water to cities/counties and turn those water rights over to the muni water systems BEFORE they’re allowed to develop the land. This obviously is slowing things down quite a bit.
It is also giving water rights owners considerably more value for their property - some of the last water rights I heard of changing from ag to muni use on the Truckee Meadows Irrigation System around Reno went for over $24,000 an acre foot. Most ditch system users like that were allocated 5 acre-feet per acre of ground when they developed the land for ag 100+ years ago - to the water rights owners finally are getting the sort of compensation they’re due, rather than these stealth takings.
And what did it was forcing more, not less, regulation down on the real estate developers. I’m increasingly a big fan of forcing more and more regulation down on real estate developers - starting with mitigation fees for water, sewers, schools, roads, fire and police services, and then continuing on to things like water basin impacts.
Ideally, I’d like to see real estate development be regulated to a crawl. There’s far too much housing built in most western states now, and it has outstripped the water supplies that will be available in 100 and 500 year droughts.
I didn’t call that a free market. I’m saying that is what is being *called* a free market - by such people as Harry Reid.
You and I are on the same page, it is turning out. I agree with your economic label for this type of taking - it fits quite well.
Dusty Harry (and his son) are the people who are pulling this off and *calling* it a “free market” in water. It isn’t. A free market means that sellers are “willing.” The SNWA is saying “We’re not putting a gun to their heads” when the water is being bought — but westerners know that when the city moves in and starts over-pumping a basin, you’re now in a competition to see who can drill deeper and faster. Ranchers and farmers cannot compete with the billions of dollars that the SNWA has at their disposal.
Since there isn’t about to be anything like a truly free market in water, I’m an advocate of fighting fire with fire - Harry comes down with a county/state/federal backdoor deal, the counties can fight it to a standstill with county regulations and county-backed court cases. In the midst of this, we have to admit that there is no free market - it is a fight of government sovereigns vs. other sovereigns, with quasi-government entities (like the SNWA) in the midst of the mess.
Over a period of time, yes.
Here in Nevada, there is a “use it or lose it” clause in non-vested water rights (all underground water rights are non-vested). Ask about vested rights if you’re interested in the distinction and history - I don’t like to bore people with such things unless they want it.
Here in Nevada, if you have a water right, you much show that you have put that right to “beneficial use” at least one out of every five years. So if you have an irrigation water right, you must show that you have grown a crop, on the land to which those water rights are attached, at least once in five years. If your water right was for watering livestock, you’d better show you brought some cows or sheep to the water at least once in five years.
If you do this, you have a full and real property right to that water. You can sell it as real property, you’re taxed on it as real property, your estate is valued with water as real property.
You don’t need to ask someone permission to use the right unless there isn’t enough water to do so. This is where seniority kicks in - see my previous reply. If there isn’t enough water to use your water right, you still have the right — it is still yours, and you are taxed on it, can buy/sell it, as real property.
Real property in the west is under what is known as “split estate” property rights.
Mineral rights, water rights, grazing rights, trespass rights, development rights, etc — are all partitioned off on land.
Water is a common good, but it is controlled by the state. The states knew (and know) that water was essential for economic development in the west. In the past, agriculture was the precursor of all permanent development. There’s a reason why most ghost towns were mining towns - when the minerals ran out, the people simply left. In the entire west, I’m aware of only one agricultural ghost town, and it is here in Nevada - Metropolis, in Elko County. They lost their water rights in a court battle and a community of thousands had to move away. You can still see the remains of the bank, hotels and schools there. Other than that, every ghost town I’ve tripped across in the west was a mining town.
When farmers come into an area and create a sustained economy, people stay. This has been known for a thousand years or more, across all cultures. The leaders in western states realized this and for this reason, water rights were created and incentives were given to farmers to come into areas and create economic activity and communities.
The farmer does indeed own the water right, on which he has paid taxes as property for years, and on which the prior farmers’ estates were taxed by the IRS.
That's right! And without either ANY overhead, or ANY carbon footprint!!!
(enuf ta make Gore grin wiff goofy glee)
How 'bout dat??? Isn't dat just about da wind beneath yer wings???
Actually, though, I thought I remembered him just towing some glacial icebergs down the coast to CA so's they could jab a spigot into the ice and suck away like a litter of baby piglets, squealing with delight!!!
I agree that the market is a better mechanism for allocating a scarce resource. However, I'd favor an approach where all who want to use it have to bid for it, and that includes the farmers. If that prices water beyond their ability to grow food with it, so be it. Either the food will be grown elsewhere or food prices will rise to where it becomes profitable to buy the water.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.