221–230 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you get a first owner for water?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? I just described two ways. There's Right of first use, Riparian rights, and my pet illustrative example of treating it as a publicly held asset to be sold... There's other ways beyond those three, but the first two are how ownership is assigned in the US today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that's some serious imagination you have there. It wouldn't work anything like that, of course.
This is what happened in CA to a lesser degree.
At all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're wildly contradicting yourself. California is both an example of how markets can't handle water, and has also never had markets in water.
I never said they had markets in water.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Residential water use is minimal. Most water is used for irrigation. Further, cheap water storage results in increased evaporation, it’s a net loss over time.
Seems like less net loss than letting it run off into the sea. Just have to deal with the extra salt from letting those reservoirs slowly evaporate.
Instead they choose to spend some water having a river.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mandatory aquifer recharging would be a good first step. One of the big problems is that California can't adequately take advantage of these wet winters because the reservoirs can only hold so much and the ground can only absorb water so fast, so a lot of water ends up getting into the rivers and escaping back into the Pacific (or sits in ephemeral lakes/ponds/wetlands until it evaporates). If we helped along the pro…
I think the main reason we don't have desalination plants is because they have to be on or near the ocean, which is the most expensive property in the state. No one wants to ruin their view or have a big industrial machine near their home. Basically, I think NIMBYism keeps us from having Desal.
So no, nimbyism has nothing to do with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying there are no water rights in the current system? If there are, what's wrong with being able to trade them?
The very wealthy buying all the water and selling it at a huge markup with poor people dying of thirst.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what happened in CA to a lesser degree.
California never had a market for water / water rights, so your extreme left imagination is left without data to back it up. At all.
Being a bit cynical here, but could we just call it the California rain cycle, instead of being amazed every 7-10 years when droughts come and go.
> instead of being amazed every 7-10 years when droughts come and go. Was there a drought 10 years ago though? I don't recall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other way around. You pay more in the flat rate if you have a big lawn.
Property size should be irrelevant. It should just be based off usage.