Source: (2019, March). Water Rights Issues in Agricultural Lending – Articles – Jordan Ramis. Retrieved from https://jordanramis.com/resources/articles/water-rights-issues-in-agricultural-lending/view/
Summary: This article directly explains water rights. It is the ability for the public to use any major waterway and that it can not be owned by any one person or cooperation. If someone owns land that borders a waterway, legislation prevents that land from being seized because of the need for the water. If a person is planning to sell their land they must transfer the water rights over in the form of a contract to the buyer. If this process is not completed the land may be federally seized and the landowner will not have rights to the waterway. This law was implemented equally distribute water and prevent a monopoly of specific waterways.
Reaction/Connection: This article was super helpful. The ability to monopolize a waterway would be irrational and simply unfair. By allowing an equal distribution of water, a finite resource, we can prevent over consumption. The main issue with this law is that there is no limit on the amount of water the landowner can use if the source is natural. This could become a huge issue if this part of the legislation is not fixed and could provide little to no leeway for smaller farmers or fishers.
I agree with you that water should be a natural resource. I also thought you made a very insightful point about how there is no limit on the amount of water a landowner could use.
This makes me think of the beach rights in Hawaii. I visited one of the Islands a couple years ago and it was illegal for any of the resorts to own and make ocean access private.
Although there is a chance that a single owner could use ‘too much’ water, wouldn’t overuse be more likely if there was distribution. This is the core idea of the tragedy of the commons; public access to a finite product. Regulated distribution would be more effective at cutting water use, and increasing availability.