11 Dec 2024 12:53 pm
CA needs to undergo a massive reckoning when it comes to water rights. They have a lot of folks who have water rights that are based on "back of the envelope" contracts. These date from the early 1900's and at that time, there was such abundance of water that no one cared. The population was nowhere near what it is today there. These very informal contracts (and frequently not legally binding) need to be challenged. This is not to say that the liberal cities need the water but it is simply inefficient to have farmer X be entitled to 100 units (just for simple math) when it is very clear that they only need 40.Skans » 11 Dec 2024, 1:47 pm » wrote: ↑ I have looked into your water rights - well, Montana's water rights. Basically, you can buy the land, but you also have to separately own the water rights. Without water rights, you really have nothing. I understand the "why", but its vastly different than anything back East. I think in some states you are even prohibited from collecting rain-runoff in a rain barrel! That's some crazy ****!