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: tejek who wrote (563912)	4/30/2010 12:28:42 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572159

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? Just seizing the water rights would be doing that. Exercising eminent domain and compensating them for it not so much. I'm not a big fan of the use of eminent domain. I'm not actually suggesting it be done. Just mentioning it as something that can be considered if the problem really is as bad as you present it as being. But fair compensation would total a very large amount of money, and reduced/unfair/below market compensation would in effect be seizing part of the value from them, so the idea has difficulties. You wouldn't have to (and I wouldn't suggest you do) take all the water rights, but rather compensate people for limiting their water rights to a certain amount of water drawn over a specified period of time. Also rather than using eminent domain or otherwise using command and control government, it might be possible to pay people to accept the limitation. Either way monitoring and enforcement could be difficult, so perhaps some other solution should be considered instead of moving this way, but while its difficult to implement defined property rights over the water would in many ways work better than other solutions, if it can be effectively implemented.