While wealth never should be "redistributed", we are seeing the liberal tenant play out when it comes to drinking water (and water in general).

 

The liberal government in California is starting to determine who gets water and who doesn't.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Hardly a liberal thing. This problem has been around since the 1800's, when early settlers bought water rights to a certain percentage of the flow from major watersheds near their property. The purpose was to ensure that farmers always had enough water for irrigation, and to ensure that even if some jerk built a farm upstream of you, you still got the cut of the water that you were "entitled" to first. That's why it's illegal in some states to collect rainwater; you don't "own" the water falling off of your roof. The person who owns the water rights to your soil does.

 

This archaic system, put into place back when "liberal" meant that you spent too much money and "conservative" meant that your women wore too many clothes, is the primary reason that cities fight for water today. Efforts have been made to change it, but farmers continue to block them. Even though farmland occupies a fraction of the turf it once did and uses a fraction of the water, they cling dearly to those water rights. Why? Because a farmer who "owns" 10 million gallons of water and only uses 100,000 can lease the rights to the other 9,900,000 gallons to Los Angeles for tens of millions of dollars. It's gone from protecting agriculture to making a handful of farmers stinking rich at the expense of places like Mountain House, CA.

 

The logical solution? End the water rights system entirely and switch to a population-based system. Tracts of land with the highest population get priority, then right on down the line to the arid desert parcels that two people and a monkey live on. Farms do need to be taken care of with a high priority, of course, but strip those lucky few individuals who hold sizeable water rights on key watersheds of their ability to fix prices and hold entire cities hostage on a yearly basis. Liberal or conservative doesn't enter into this one at all.

---

Because a farmer who "owns" 10 million gallons of water and only uses 100,000 can lease the rights to the other 9,900,000 gallons to Los Angeles for tens of millions of dollars. It's gone from protecting agriculture to making a handful of farmers stinking rich at the expense of places like Mountain House, CA.

 

Link?

---

Later. I'll have to hunt for it. I know that it came up in relation to a story about why collecting rainwater is illegal in Colorado, so if you wanted to Google it, that's a good place to start. I'm headed out to dinner and will check when I get back.

---

Check that, here it is. Long read, but worthwhile.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govb...your-home/

---

$2100/acre is a very far cry from "tens of millions of dollars" and "stinking rich."

---

It takes a gallon of water to grow a single almond.  

 

Reservoirs in California are running dry while people continue to fill their swimming pools and water their lawns, and farmers continue to grow almonds and other water-sucking crops.    They grow alfalfa which is then shipped to China.   So the farmers in California are basically exporting water to China at a time when water is running out for the rest of the citizens.   Who owns the water in the rivers and lakes in California?   It's a valid question.  

 

Sorry, small government fans, but it's a bad situation that cries out for some regulation.   That's why we have elections, and  that's why we ask our elected representatives to set some rules. 

---

Hardly a liberal thing. This problem has been around since the 1800's, when early settlers bought water rights to a certain percentage of the flow from major watersheds near their property. The purpose was to ensure that farmers always had enough water for irrigation, and to ensure that even if some jerk built a farm upstream of you, you still got the cut of the water that you were "entitled" to first. That's why it's illegal in some states to collect rainwater; you don't "own" the water falling off of your roof. The person who owns the water rights to your soil does.

 

This archaic system, put into place back when "liberal" meant that you spent too much money and "conservative" meant that your women wore too many clothes, is the primary reason that cities fight for water today. Efforts have been made to change it, but farmers continue to block them. Even though farmland occupies a fraction of the turf it once did and uses a fraction of the water, they cling dearly to those water rights. Why? Because a farmer who "owns" 10 million gallons of water and only uses 100,000 can lease the rights to the other 9,900,000 gallons to Los Angeles for tens of millions of dollars. It's gone from protecting agriculture to making a handful of farmers stinking rich at the expense of places like Mountain House, CA.

 

The logical solution? End the water rights system entirely and switch to a population-based system. Tracts of land with the highest population get priority, then right on down the line to the arid desert parcels that two people and a monkey live on. Farms do need to be taken care of with a high priority, of course, but strip those lucky few individuals who hold sizeable water rights on key watersheds of their ability to fix prices and hold entire cities hostage on a yearly basis. Liberal or conservative doesn't enter into this one at all.

the water rights farmers mainly have are agriculture/irrigation water and not for human consumption...basically they get untreated water from a river, or lake et.al via canals and dedicated irrigation ditches which run past and through the farmers land...Both sides of my grandparents are/were farmers...Now that being said, when one buys a property, there are certain rights included in the deed, one of which are water rights...Those water rights are separate from the other water rights which are usually contolled by an irrigation authority to which the farmers pay for a certain amount of water supply to water their crops and animals...

 

The reason for for separate water rights is simple...The agricultural and irrigation water is suitable for animal and crop use, but not human consumption...The other water rights contained in the Deed, are from wells and are suitable for human consumption... The  agricultural and animal water rights was organized and sold to farmers and ranchers because well water is generally restricted to a certain size domestic well for households and a separate small well for irrigation not big enough for crop use or large herds of cattle or horses...

 

The reason for the separate sets of water rights is simple...It's all about conserving the deep domestic (good) water from groundwater wells for human consumption, and leave surface water and water unsuitable for human consumption for crops and animals...

---

It takes a gallon of water to grow a single almond.  

 

Reservoirs in California are running dry while people continue to fill their swimming pools and water their lawns, and farmers continue to grow almonds and other water-sucking crops.    They grow alfalfa which is then shipped to China.   So the farmers in California are basically exporting water to China at a time when water is running out for the rest of the citizens.   Who owns the water in the rivers and lakes in California?   It's a valid question.  

 

Sorry, small government fans, but it's a bad situation that cries out for some regulation.   That's why we have elections, and  that's why we ask our elected representatives to set some rules. 

so I guess almond farmers ( I don't think that's the proper term) should just all stop growing almonds and go on welfare? I would be interested to see what percentage of alfalfa is sold to china...I wouldn't think that it would a be a great amount as China isn't known for horse farms and cow herds...We ship a lot of milk to China so I wouldn't think there would be a huge call for alfalfa....There are millions of cows and horses here in our country so there has ao be a huge supply of alfalfa to be sold to our own people

---

Lol you guys are all wayyyyyyyyyyy out in left field.

---

so I guess almond farmers ( I don't think that's the proper term) should just all stop growing almonds and go on welfare? I would be interested to see what percentage of alfalfa is sold to china...I wouldn't think that it would a be a great amount as China isn't known for horse farms and cow herds...We ship a lot of milk to China so I wouldn't think there would be a huge call for alfalfa....There are millions of cows and horses here in our country so there has ao be a huge supply of alfalfa to be sold to our own people

 

China may not be a big consumer of alfalfa, but they love their Buckwheat!

 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.