Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (563495)	4/28/2010 12:58:03 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1572108

"That makes it much more complex, but to the extent drilling for water is in any way subsidized, that subsidy should be removed, as should all the general subsidies for water " I don't know of any state that subsidizes drilling for water from that aquifer. It is pretty easy to tap it. "the problem with this when your dealing with a large aquifer is that you are in effect taking part of the property rights that current land owners have. " Hence the controversy. "You could compensate them for that." You are talking about totally overhauling the way mineral rights are handled. Not saying it shouldn't be done, but it would be a huge job and entrenched interests would fight it. Which adds to the expense. "Maintaining the water supply is a reasonable public interest issue. But it would be expensive. Also enforcement would be rather difficult." No kidding. While in the northern part, recharging can reasonably be done, in other parts it is essentially impossible on a human time scale.

To: TimF who wrote (563495)	4/29/2010 11:05:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572108

A pair of these shoes cost over $1000: neimanmarcus.com Why?

To: TimF who wrote (563495)	4/29/2010 11:08:24 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572108

That makes it much more complex, but to the extent drilling for water is in any way subsidized, that subsidy should be removed, as should all the general subsidies for water (most often subsidies for agriculture or industry). There is no subsidy. People pay for their own wells. If the shortage is truly severe than if you can establish some private property rights over the water you can handle it more efficiently than by any other method, the problem with this when your dealing with a large aquifer is that you are in effect taking part of the property rights that current land owners have. You could compensate them for that. Maintaining the water supply is a reasonable public interest issue. But it would be expensive. Also enforcement would be rather difficult. Now you've entered the hornets' nest. These rights were established hundreds of years ago when the land and the aquifer were vast and the farmers few in numbers. These rights have been handed down from generation to generation on property deeds. Are you the one to tell the current generation those deeds are not longer valid?