The California[1] Water Rights system is staggeringly inequitable, and is really an indictment of "democracy", where large, entrenched power bases vote just for the selfish interests, preventing progress towards a better managed, more equitable system.
There's a good lesson in there about politics and power, which I'm not experienced or eloquent enough to express.
It’s not limited to California. It’s most of the western states.
The problem with trying to reform it is that the state courts have found that prior appropriation created a vested property right. Once declared by a state such a right is protected by the Fifth Amendment (as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.) So it’s very difficult/expensive to unwind this mistake.
Which votes are you referring to? Unfortunately this is largely a property rights issue so not much has even come to a vote. In theory state legislators could give the government greater statutory authority to seize water rights under eminent domain and pay compensation to rights holders, but the budget impact would be huge.
Yeah, I think this can only be a criticism of "democracy" in an extremely narrow sense. Much of the situation is still determined through litigation, not legislation, whether in court or in front of the state water resources board. My mom worked for a water attorney, and I lived and worked in ag in an irrigation district that had an active case in front of the water board. In both cases, the billable hours were endless, and in the latter case, winning a defense in front of the water board was enough to get the lead attorney a promotion to senior staff lawyer at another irrigation district.
Plus sheer cashflow, not votes, is what's driving a lot of the more water-intensive ag in the dry southern end of the San Joaquin Valley. The Resnicks (Wonderful pomegranate juice/almonds/pistachios, Cutie citrus, billionaire LA residents) are essentially agribusiness investors rather than hands-on farmers, and most emphatically DO NOT have senior water rights for most of their operations, but they DO have the cashflow to buy water off of more senior rights holders, and they have the nationwide distribution on the other end to keep that cashflow going. Whether that continues to be sustainable, or their heirs want to keep it up... we shall see. In the meantime, it is a perfectly reasonable business decision as a senior rights holder to fallow your land or otherwise curtail your use, and sell your allotment down the aqueduct. Fresno State has the California Water Institute which publishes a great deal of informative studies and policy papers: http://www.californiawater.org/publications/ They've noted in the past that transactions like this essentially carry no tax or infrastructure maintenance fees. That's one policy change that could easily be voted into place.
Even setting aside the financial cost considerations other commenters have expressed, getting voters behind a wholesale change is a big project. The water situation simply hasn't started to bite hard enough for the bulk of the state's urban population. I'm often skeptical of ballot initiatives and the necessarily shallow marketing campaigns that accompany them, and a ballot initiative to reform the pre-/post-1914 water rights system would need an absolutely huge, multi-year educational push and likely multiple failures and retries at the ballot box. That's not to say it's impossible, as things are noticeably changing. These days, I live over the hill from Coalinga, which almost ran the hell out of water last year: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/24/coalinga-california-faces-th...
also fun fact: I recently learned during a visit to the Hoover Dam that its primary purpose isn't power but managing water flow to the downstream (water-)rights-holders. Power is a side-effect.
The bit about Sacramento not having water meters is particularly mad.
Driving through the Imperial Valley was a big wake up call for me as to the dire state of the water situation in California. We are transporting water hundreds of miles to grow food in the middle of a desert.
The old incentives and laws are clearly not going to be enough for the future, particularly on the Colorado. As usual, no one acts until the crisis is here on our doorstep.
The article is from 2009 and more water meters have been installed.
> [E]very customer within the SSWD service area will have a water meter by 2025 as mandated by State law. In February 2004, the Board approved a Water Meter Retrofit Plan which outlines the criteria used to determine when an area within the District will receive water meters. For more information on the Water Meter Retrofit Plan go to sswd.org.
> Sacramento County Water Agency has approximately 90% of our customers with water meters. We are currently on our last phase of new meter installation in Laguna with plans for completion by the end of this year.
I lived in Sacramento city limits for 6 years. We most definitely had metered water.
In fact I had a friend, also in sac city, who had a broken water pipe. It was underground and not visible. The bill for 1 month was over $3,000. It was metered. (Luckily, some grant program paid/reduced the bill)
Transporting water to grow food isn't default a bad idea, if growing in one place is better than another and makes up for the transportation costs. Growing in warmer climates means crops are less likely to be lost due to frost, and it allows greater variety of crops to be available at different times of the year.
Water management is a huge deal, and we're doing it terribly. Lots of variables to balance, not just water but also resilience to changes in weather, variety available in different seasons, efficient water usage, crop rotation & soil usage, etc. Hard to say definitively any given practice is absolutely good or bad without a broader context of where it fits in the overall package.
Why is it mad? From a system perspective, what benefits would they get from meters? Energy saving from not having to purify and deliver the water, granted. But from a state supply perspective all that water comes from and returns to the big river.
You’re growing food in a valley with amazing soil and great weather. Seems pretty smart to divert water to grow crops rather than letting the water just run into the ocean?
[+] [-] AceJohnny2|2 years ago|reply
There's a good lesson in there about politics and power, which I'm not experienced or eloquent enough to express.
[1] likely not limited to just California!
[+] [-] bradleyjg|2 years ago|reply
The problem with trying to reform it is that the state courts have found that prior appropriation created a vested property right. Once declared by a state such a right is protected by the Fifth Amendment (as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.) So it’s very difficult/expensive to unwind this mistake.
[+] [-] nradov|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] batman-farts|2 years ago|reply
Plus sheer cashflow, not votes, is what's driving a lot of the more water-intensive ag in the dry southern end of the San Joaquin Valley. The Resnicks (Wonderful pomegranate juice/almonds/pistachios, Cutie citrus, billionaire LA residents) are essentially agribusiness investors rather than hands-on farmers, and most emphatically DO NOT have senior water rights for most of their operations, but they DO have the cashflow to buy water off of more senior rights holders, and they have the nationwide distribution on the other end to keep that cashflow going. Whether that continues to be sustainable, or their heirs want to keep it up... we shall see. In the meantime, it is a perfectly reasonable business decision as a senior rights holder to fallow your land or otherwise curtail your use, and sell your allotment down the aqueduct. Fresno State has the California Water Institute which publishes a great deal of informative studies and policy papers: http://www.californiawater.org/publications/ They've noted in the past that transactions like this essentially carry no tax or infrastructure maintenance fees. That's one policy change that could easily be voted into place.
Even setting aside the financial cost considerations other commenters have expressed, getting voters behind a wholesale change is a big project. The water situation simply hasn't started to bite hard enough for the bulk of the state's urban population. I'm often skeptical of ballot initiatives and the necessarily shallow marketing campaigns that accompany them, and a ballot initiative to reform the pre-/post-1914 water rights system would need an absolutely huge, multi-year educational push and likely multiple failures and retries at the ballot box. That's not to say it's impossible, as things are noticeably changing. These days, I live over the hill from Coalinga, which almost ran the hell out of water last year: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/24/coalinga-california-faces-th...
[+] [-] AceJohnny2|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nateberkopec|2 years ago|reply
Driving through the Imperial Valley was a big wake up call for me as to the dire state of the water situation in California. We are transporting water hundreds of miles to grow food in the middle of a desert.
The old incentives and laws are clearly not going to be enough for the future, particularly on the Colorado. As usual, no one acts until the crisis is here on our doorstep.
[+] [-] skybrian|2 years ago|reply
> [E]very customer within the SSWD service area will have a water meter by 2025 as mandated by State law. In February 2004, the Board approved a Water Meter Retrofit Plan which outlines the criteria used to determine when an area within the District will receive water meters. For more information on the Water Meter Retrofit Plan go to sswd.org.
https://www.sswd.org/departments/engineering/capital-improve...
> Sacramento County Water Agency has approximately 90% of our customers with water meters. We are currently on our last phase of new meter installation in Laguna with plans for completion by the end of this year.
https://waterresources.saccounty.gov/scwa/Pages/Water-Meteri...
[+] [-] ruffrey|2 years ago|reply
I lived in Sacramento city limits for 6 years. We most definitely had metered water.
In fact I had a friend, also in sac city, who had a broken water pipe. It was underground and not visible. The bill for 1 month was over $3,000. It was metered. (Luckily, some grant program paid/reduced the bill)
[+] [-] npunt|2 years ago|reply
Water management is a huge deal, and we're doing it terribly. Lots of variables to balance, not just water but also resilience to changes in weather, variety available in different seasons, efficient water usage, crop rotation & soil usage, etc. Hard to say definitively any given practice is absolutely good or bad without a broader context of where it fits in the overall package.
[+] [-] jeffbee|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] refurb|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calme_toi|2 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown_(1974_film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_water_wars
[+] [-] rcpt|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JamesLeonis|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rcpt|2 years ago|reply