> They were very good at filing amicus briefs. They were very good at negotiating consent decrees. They were very good at producing reports. They had professionalized advocacy to the point where the people doing the advocating had more in common, socioeconomically and culturally, with the people they were negotiating against than with the communities bearing the consequences of the failures they were negotiating about.
The problem is, we have this expectation that we can live and do things in the desert and everything will just be fine.
_That_ is the problem. The solution is to let prices increase "out of control" until there's response from people to change their habits, or new solutions that were previously unprofitable emerge.
If the price of water for residential consumptions rises too much, the humans would probably vote in favor of things that would make insane agricultural consumption unviable.
Property taxes that accurately account for the relative value of property with water rights vs those that don’t. Excise taxes on water pumping. Etc.
The problem is that they don’t pay their fair share. Farms get insanely low rates and grow things like alfalfa that doesn’t even feed people but requires an insane amount of water.
Las Vegas recycles almost 100% of its indoor water usage and minimizes outdoor usage. They pay you to remove your lawn and almost all of them are gone.
In 5-10 years, if this ends up like many are predicting (and I don’t know if it will or not), you are going to see people by the hundreds or thousands appealing their property tax assessments, saying their land is effectively worthless if water is too expensive or unavailable. They’ll get denied but some of them will contest the denial and file suit. And eventually one wins in court. Then everyone contests and everyone wins. And the only land that can be taxed has water rights. And unless the farmer plans to get his alfalfa to market via helicopter, he’s gonna have to pay the taxes or the roads disappear. He’s proper F’ed.
> alfalfa that doesn’t even feed people but requires an insane amount of water
Just because people don't eat the alfalfa doesn't mean it isn't ultimately feeding people. Cows eat a ton of alfalfa, and we get both meat and milk from them. So it is feeding people, just indirectly.
The problem is that because farmers pay artificially low prices for their subsidized water, it distorts the price signals of the market. Who says cattle need to eat alfalfa? If they had to pay market rates for water, we’d probably find a more suitable crop that doesn’t need quite so much. But there’s no incentive right now to even try.
This essay was really good and I think will prove to be pretty accurate in the long run. Not sure about 2030, but we’re certainly headed in that direction.
> They were very good at filing amicus briefs. They were very good at negotiating consent decrees. They were very good at producing reports. They had professionalized advocacy to the point where the people doing the advocating had more in common, socioeconomically and culturally, with the people they were negotiating against than with the communities bearing the consequences of the failures they were negotiating about.
Great writing.
> My water bill has doubled since 2025
The problem is, we have this expectation that we can live and do things in the desert and everything will just be fine.
_That_ is the problem. The solution is to let prices increase "out of control" until there's response from people to change their habits, or new solutions that were previously unprofitable emerge.
Humans consuming water are not the problem. It’s the insane agriculture happening across the west.
If the price of water for residential consumptions rises too much, the humans would probably vote in favor of things that would make insane agricultural consumption unviable.
Property taxes that accurately account for the relative value of property with water rights vs those that don’t. Excise taxes on water pumping. Etc.
The problem is that they don’t pay their fair share. Farms get insanely low rates and grow things like alfalfa that doesn’t even feed people but requires an insane amount of water.
Las Vegas recycles almost 100% of its indoor water usage and minimizes outdoor usage. They pay you to remove your lawn and almost all of them are gone.
Yes, you’re talking about right now.
In 5-10 years, if this ends up like many are predicting (and I don’t know if it will or not), you are going to see people by the hundreds or thousands appealing their property tax assessments, saying their land is effectively worthless if water is too expensive or unavailable. They’ll get denied but some of them will contest the denial and file suit. And eventually one wins in court. Then everyone contests and everyone wins. And the only land that can be taxed has water rights. And unless the farmer plans to get his alfalfa to market via helicopter, he’s gonna have to pay the taxes or the roads disappear. He’s proper F’ed.
We'll that and once the majority of the voters are affected they farming voter block won't have enough control and find themselves in a world of hurt.
> alfalfa that doesn’t even feed people but requires an insane amount of water
Just because people don't eat the alfalfa doesn't mean it isn't ultimately feeding people. Cows eat a ton of alfalfa, and we get both meat and milk from them. So it is feeding people, just indirectly.
I think the point is it's an very inefficient way to get calories.
The problem is that because farmers pay artificially low prices for their subsidized water, it distorts the price signals of the market. Who says cattle need to eat alfalfa? If they had to pay market rates for water, we’d probably find a more suitable crop that doesn’t need quite so much. But there’s no incentive right now to even try.
Thats exactly what I'm saying.
This essay was really good and I think will prove to be pretty accurate in the long run. Not sure about 2030, but we’re certainly headed in that direction.