Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts

#11

Post by mooreds »

vwoolf wrote: post #5

States should charge market rates for water, so that a liter is a liter is a liter regardless of its destination. For example, using 70+% of Arizona's water for agriculture is terrible. https://mapazdashboard.arizona.edu/article/arizonas-water-us... Prices work. They are an incentive wrapped in a signal.

Actually, AZ's desert has some shocking benefits for agriculture.

* Lots of sun, so you can get many growing seasons.

* No pests (there's nothing else for them to live on)

* Few weeds to compete with what you are growing.

I know, I was surprised too.

This podcast goes into more details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owieQnPYfT8

Re: Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts

#12

Post by hciektnxn7 »

vwoolf wrote: post #5

States should charge market rates for water, so that a liter is a liter is a liter regardless of its destination. For example, using 70+% of Arizona's water for agriculture is terrible. https://mapazdashboard.arizona.edu/article/arizonas-water-us... Prices work. They are an incentive wrapped in a signal.

[dead]

Re: Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts

#13

Post by voakbasda »

Supermancho wrote: post #10
vwoolf wrote: post #5

States should charge market rates for water, so that a liter is a liter is a liter regardless of its destination. For example, using 70+% of Arizona's water for agriculture is terrible. https://mapazdashboard.arizona.edu/article/arizonas-water-us... Prices work. They are an incentive wrapped in a signal.

> For example, using 70+% of Arizona's water for agriculture is terrible. We don't live in a society where the govt allocates the best land for farming as farmland (yet). Normally, I am a proponent for agriculture...as long as it serves as supply for the US. What's worrying, is how much of the agriculture is foreign owned, then shipped overseas. https://www.azfamily.com/2022/12/28/wells-are-running-dry-dr...

That’s not entirely true. Zoning laws designate parcels intended for agricultural use. My farm land has zoning restrictions that prevent pretty much any kind of business activity other than farming. For example, I can’t host events like weddings more than four times a year.

However, your point about exports is accurate. I can’t find affordable alfalfa for my animals, because it’s all being shipped overseas where it fetches a higher price.

Re: Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts

#14

Post by voakbasda »

schaefer wrote: post #2

My understanding is that right now Colorado River water rights are defined in terms of absolute volume. So when there isn't enough water to satisfy the water rights, it leads to conflict. It seems like a natural alternative is to define water rights as being relative to the amount of water available in the river. that way water rights would scale with the drought. but, I fully appreciate that I am a novice, and can a…

One big problem with implementing new ideas like yours — and like many potential solutions to problems with current laws — is quite simply: how do we get from here to there without effectively screwing over all of the current players in the game? And if you are willing to screw them over, why should they trust that they will not get screwed by the new scheme at some point?

Re: Colorado River states draw battle lines over who should bear water cuts

#15

Post by curiousgibbon »

voakbasda wrote: post #14
schaefer wrote: post #2

My understanding is that right now Colorado River water rights are defined in terms of absolute volume. So when there isn't enough water to satisfy the water rights, it leads to conflict. It seems like a natural alternative is to define water rights as being relative to the amount of water available in the river. that way water rights would scale with the drought. but, I fully appreciate that I am a novice, and can a…

One big problem with implementing new ideas like yours — and like many potential solutions to problems with current laws — is quite simply: how do we get from here to there without effectively screwing over all of the current players in the game? And if you are willing to screw them over, why should they trust that they will not get screwed by the new scheme at some point?

Some of the current players are already screwed. There is less water available than is desired. The government isn't supposed to come in and screw everything up they're supposed to spread the hurt around "fairly" or in some other way compatible with the national interest. This isn't some arbitrary reorganizing of water rights for political ends, there just isn't enough water in the American West for old ways to continue.
Post reply on HN