[terramars]

I agree this is ripe for abuse, but I also know enough about the CA water ecosystem to know it's a welcome development from an agriculture capacity planning perspective. There may be some speculators, but overwhelmingly the people trading this product will be water utilities and large farms who need multi-year planning for in particular tree crops. It looks like it's purely a cash backed contract and there isn't delivery, so it's going to just be used for hedging. Privatization of water is a huge issue especially in the developing world, but this isn't the same problem.

EDIT for clarification : water is a basic human right, but pumping 1 million acre feet to grow almonds and make bank is not.

[dnautics]

> water is a basic human right

What exactly does that mean? I agree that it would be nice if everyone could afford to have water, but it just doesn't seem the same as, say "the right to not be tortured", which is an abstract and not a commodity that a priori must have non-free infrastructure to provide to everyone.

[dj_mc_merlin]

It means the government should provide water to people that are thirsty and can't afford it. Dehydration is not something to let be inflicted on someone because they do not have cash, even if the money for the water comes from the people who are producing wealth in society. Losing a couple of dollars does not hurt you, thirst does hurt.

[dnautics]

That still doesn't make it a right, that makes it a government-guaranteed good.

[dj_mc_merlin]

All rights are government-guaranteed. Who else? Your right to not be stabbed is enforced by the latent threat of prison and the police. Why would it matter if the right comes in form of an action (or prevention of one) or a physical good?

[dnautics]

Because one of those things is materially rivalrous and it's important to acknowledge that. There is an explicit choice to distribute it politically, whereas something like police protection is inherently and unambiguously political.

Fwiw I don't think there's an inherent right to property.

Also the important thing is (presumably) you don't care who provides the water, just that humans get the water. Suppose fresh water were not the responsibility of governments, but NGOs, and everyone were provided water. Would you still consider it necessary "right"? Before you say "governments are more stable" I don't think there is any reason to believe that a government is more capable of equitably redistributing water to people in need; you money going to water is also wrapped up in money that goes to bomb people with different skin color halfway around the world, or XYZ things you don't care for your government to do; a nonprofit is typically slightly more focused in its mission and more effective at delivering that need, at least on a cost basis.

It's hard to make that argument with police forces; private police forces would probably be a terrible idea.

[aqme28]

Is access to legal counsel a right? Or at least a fair trial? That's not free either. What about the right to an education?

[dnautics]

access to a fair trial and legal counsel, is absolutely free. The way to think of it is "the government cannot prosecute you without also providing you with those things". In theory, the part that costs society is the prosecution, not the fair trial. Of course, politicians these days don't couch it in those terms, so who knows anymore. Even the US does not protect any of the rights guaranteed in the first 10 amendments anyways (nope, not even the 3rd).

Nonetheless, the way that we practice enforcing the fair trial and legal counsel rights follows the theoretical structure: You can be acquitted of a crime if the state has failed to provide you with those guarantees, and that is when that "right" kicks in.

I'm not sure what the "right to an education is". I sure would like for everyone to get a good, free education (and I put my money where my mouth is), but I wouldn't call it a right.

[opinion-is-bad]

I agree that tree crop farmers can really benefit from access to this type of product. I am a little concerned that this will only encourage even riskier nut development when the aquifers are already stressed as much as they are. I am still hopeful that California will consider something similar to cap-and-trade for water rights, but for now I guess we just have to wait and see what all those little SGMA districts come up with instead.

[eru]

Why do they even need cap-and-trade? That would at most be a second best.

Just make water rights fully tradeable.

Of course, you might also want to remove grandfathered water rights. Good luck getting that past the lobbyists.

But even with the existing silly initial distribution of water rights, making them fully tradeable would increase efficiency:

The almond farmer would still get lots of water, but at least he'd turn into a former almond former and just sell his water on the market to someone with a better use.

[an_opabinia]

> that this will only encourage even riskier nut development

What risks?

Farm income this year has tripled entirely because of subsidies. It is obviously completely and utterly irrelevant how you structure water markets or who's buying and selling what nuts, in a world where a 10 minute decision in an afternoon can 3x profitability.

[opinion-is-bad]

The risks are to the water table in California. The current rate of ground water depletion is unsustainable. Sorry for being unclear about what avenue I meant by risk.