[marktwain]

“Water on California’s open market typically sells for $50 per acre-foot in wet years. But now it is expected to go for as much as $200. Farmers, however, pay $30 to $60, rates that are set under state and federal policy. (An acre-foot is enough water to cover an acre to a depth of one foot.) “

---

What the farmers want to do is exactly right. Water should be on the market as a commodity. It will then go where it is needed the most. Have the State and Federal governement negotiate the current water rights mess to allocate percentages of the available water supply in line with the current law, then let the owners sell it for all the market will bear. The market will allocate the water far better and more efficiently than any regulatory scheme could.

[abigkahuna]

Its nice to live up here at the source. I live in Oroville, up here ion Northern California. We have Lake Oroville and ship water to LA...I am on my own well with water rights to the irrigation district too. The water tastes fresh and clean with no chlorine or fluoride. Maybe a little mercury and arsenic from the halcyon days of the gold rush, but hey? whats a little mercury between friends eh?

[BipolarBob]

Water should be on the market as a commodity. It will then go where it is needed the most.'

That is wrong. I believe in an open market on all items except necessities. The water will go to the highest bidder. This means it will suck to be Bill Gates neighbor. The richest neighborhoods will have all of the water for pools while others thirst? Is that it? Now as far as cars, ATVs and caviar let the marketplace rule.

[BfloGuy]

What the farmers want to do is exactly right.

No it isn't. The farmers are buying water at a cheap, subsidised price. They want to resell it at market rates. Let the farmers pay the full price and we'll talk.

[NVDave]

This is the sort of free-market dogma espoused by people who haven’t actually studied the effects of diverting water to “the highest bidder.”

Here in Nevada, the Southern Nevada Water Authority is seeking to dry up entire valleys, one after another, running up the east side of the state. They’ve filed on all unappropriated groundwater, they’re buying up ranches and farms, etc.

The net:net effect is that economic development in these rural counties is halted forever. Their school systems will never have the growth in tax based from economic growth necessary to fund the school budgets. As a result, the school systems become wards of the state government. The taxpayers end up paying to transport the water, then pay for the effects of transporting the water.

Water should stay where it is. The Owens Valley is a prime example of what happens when cities “buy” water “for the highest and best use.” The taxpayers have been paying and paying and paying for that fiasco, and they’re going to keep on paying.

In the end, people have to learn that there are limits to urban growth. Water is the limiting factor. There comes a point where no more people will be able to move into an area and that’s that.

[Wizy]

If there is any true “public property” its air and water. These farmers already are getting it at a subsidized rate, to go along with many, many, other subsidies. We are not talking about the poor impoverished farmers of a couple decades ago. Many arenas of the ag. industry are doing very well right now, corn (due to the “fuel craze”), and dairy prices are as high as they’ve ever been. Which is great...good for them. But they are still receiving ridiculous amounts in unnecessary handouts...these are business, that are not run in accordance with the rules that govern our capita;ist market. A business (non-ag.)owner that runs his operation poorly, or makes bad decisions goes under...but not farmers; they get a big fat taxpayer check regardless. If their state allows them to sell water as a commodity so be it; but then they should at least have to pay the same amount as everyone else for it!

[John Jorsett]

What the farmers want to do is exactly right. Water should be on the market as a commodity. It will then go where it is needed the most. Have the State and Federal governement negotiate the current water rights mess to allocate percentages of the available water supply in line with the current law, then let the owners sell it for all the market will bear. The market will allocate the water far better and more efficiently than any regulatory scheme could.

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.