Just make the price of water match the cost of it, and flood irrigation no longer becomes cost effective. Of course wrangling that through the entrenched interests is another story.
Water flows horizontally through aquifers, so water from your well isn't really "yours". California is starting to mandate meters on wells in some counties (as they should).
I am not 100% sure about the law in CA, but here in NM all the meters could do is check that you do not exceed the water rights associated with the property. Every piece of land has some amount of water rights (possibly zero), and you cannot be prevented from obtaining that much water from the land via wells. In most of the US west, the water you pull from groundwater reserves very much is yours as long as you do not exceed your alloted water rights.
None of which helps with establishing the actual cost of the water.
Granted, the situation with the CA and AZ irrigation projects is somewhat different, since the water arrives on your land thanks to a massive federal government project. In this case, while it might not be accurate, determining and defining some sort of price is feasible.
I was referring to physics, not laws. The water allotments you describe are clearly unsustainable, unless they vary from year to year based on the local aquifer (if so, it's similar to what the CA meters check).
I know the compacts with other states have trigger points that invalidate them during shortages. I wonder if the NM allotments work that way too. (If not, and they're fixed for all time, then NM is probably headed to a situation where there simply isn't any water.)
The well water in CA mostly arrives due to snow pack melting and sinking into the aquifer.
There are state projects to allow faster spring melts (thanks, climate change!) to reach the aquifer. They basically slow the flood water and cut ruts that let it drain into the aquifer instead of the ocean.
Your "massive federal project" is probably referring to the California aquaducts and reservoirs, which are a separate water delivery network.
Water rights in NM are not based on aquifer conditions, they are absolute inalienable rights associated with a piece of land. Yeah, I know, it's absolutely freakin' insane. Of course, nothing about the water rights actually says that you're going to get that much water.
The interstate compacts for the Colorado and Rio Grande (also the Pecos) don't have anything directly to do with intra-state water rights. Obviously they are connected in some implicit way because it's all the same water. But this is why in general you can't fulfill water rights by pumping from rivers directly (its not impossible to do legally, just hard). Every drop of rain or snow that falls on NM is effectively pre-alloted (and the federal government already controls a large chunk of it).
AFAIU, it's only the water delivered via aquaducts that can really be said to have a controllable cost. I know that CA generally prefers that farmers use that water and not pull from the acquifer, but my impression has been that they can't prevent farmers from using wells if they stay within the water rights associated with the land.
AFAIU, this only impacts the San Juan (and likely the Chama diversion). But yeah, wow (also wow for an incredibly poorly written bit of journalism about a very important topic).
The concept here, which is clearly and correctly communicated by the article, is simple.
New Mexico believes that it has the final say on its water. New Mexico believes that every drop of water that falls in New Mexico is under New Mexico's final control.
For 50 years, New Mexico has been "negotiating" with the Native Americans in their land, by running their own courts and deciding in their own favor, over and over again.
This is blatantly illegal. The entities they are dealing with are soveirgn nations - entirely distinct countries - and we have been very, very clear with the states that they do not have dominion. If you're American, just think about all those casino fights. Every single one, lost. All of them.
Why?
Because *the states are not the owners of that land.* Those are other countries, and they get to set their own rules.
The problem is that New Mexico has been robbing the Native Americans of their water for almost a century, and has become entirely dependant on water that does not belong to them.
Over the last fifteen years, the Navajo have been saying "this is going too far, we don't have electricity or sewage or schools, you can't keep taking our resources for free." So New Mexico offered them about five cents on the dollar for their water, which amounted to about $1.3 billion.
Then New Mexico took three times as much water as they purchased, and reneged on half the money.
The Navajo finally said "enough" and took them to court, because New Mexico in 2019 took so much water that Navajo people started dying of thirst.
New Mexico runs sprinklers on lawns in the open air, while taking away so much water from the Native Americans that they're dying.
Every one of those beautiful trees in the near forest city of Santa Fe is built on the corpses of Navajo who died of thirst.
The Navajo won.
The State Engineer's Office immediately paniced, because more than 70% of New Mexico's water is stolen from the other countries that New Mexico thought it owned. They will all win too, if they try.
The State Engineer's Office went to the court of appeals and said "please let us continue to steal the Native Americans' water, we know they're dying and we know they're another country and we're just a state, but the trees in our city parks are thirsty."
For once, the US courts did the right thing. They said "no, and you're not allowed to raise it further."
It's the whole state. The reason this is important is that every single source of water to New Mexico flows through the land of either The Nuntzi, the Navajo, the Goshutes, the Shoshone, the Shivwits, or the Koosharem.
If they all take the route that the Navajo did, then Santa Fe no longer has a water supply at all.
This article, that you said was incredibly poorly written, got all of these topics correct.
I'm sorry you felt the need to insult the writer. It also makes me feel pretty bad for having brought it up, because I thought this would be worth your time.
In the balance, it seems like you didn't learn what the real situation is.
> Because the states are not the owners of that land. Those are other countries, and they get to set their own rules.
I expect it is more complicated than that, and less adversarial. The states really could make life more unpleasant for the reservations if they wanted, and the feds couldn't necessarily keep that from happening. It's in everyone's best interest to play along.
I was speaking in general. But yes, I think that it may be contentious occasionally, but mostly the states and the reservations try to cooperate. If push comes to shove, the states will end up winning, and the tribes know it. The situation they have now is as good as it's going to get, and it could only get worse if they fight viciously over every jurisdictional question.
First of all, the state of NM does not lay claim to all the water that falls here. Large parts of the state are federally owned, and other large parts are tribe owned. As a result, the state only has claim to about 45% of the water that falls from the sky or flows across the land, the rest is already allocated.
The article in the ABQ Journal does not, in fact, state any of the things you've mentioned above. I appreciate that you cited the article, I just think it was poorly written.
What the article describes is this: a Court of Appeals judge said that because Congress was involved in the settlement between (at least) the Navajo and the state of NM, Congress is now in charge of water in NM and not the state (at least, this is one reasonable interpretation of the opinion). The SE Office appealed this on the basis that it contradicts decades of clear precedent. NMSC declined to hear the appeal, which potentially leaves the door to someone (potentially one of the tribes) forcing administrative action that forces Congress into active oversight of water allocation etc.
I said it was poorly written because it lacks sufficient context, uses short out-of-context quotes from the court's opinion, and because it completely fails to explain the relationship between the SE Office/State, the tribes and the US Congress. The article does not describe the settlement reached with the Navajo, for example, it does not describe the general situation with water in the state, it does not describe the context of the settlement.
In addition, I do not believe it is the true to say:
> The entities they are dealing with are soveirgn nations - entirely distinct countries
While the US (and to some extent, the Spanish) did grant significant sovereignty to (some of the) the nations already here during European colonization, the sovereignty of the tribes today is far more complex than is indicated by calling them "entirely distinct countries". Any serious challenge to the authority of the federal government would be harshly dealt with (challenges to state government, not so much). The Navajo and the Hopi utilized the federal government in their attempts to resolve their own disputes over land and access. While I believe that the tribes deserve more autonomy, more power and definitely more water, the actual legal situation is far more complex than the one that exists, for example, between the USA and Mexico or the USA and Canada.
> every single source of water to New Mexico flows through the land of either The Nuntzi, the Navajo, the Goshutes, the Shoshone, the Shivwits, or the Koosharem.
I think (but am not certain) that you're describing inflows to the area of the state. This does not describe the Pecos River, nor the rainfall nor the snow.
In general, I think you might be imagining that I'm not aware of or sympathetic to the tribes' arguments in this matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. I entirely agree with the terms of the settlement, and think it should likely go further.
> the state of NM does not lay claim to all the water that falls here ... and other large parts are tribe owned.
Yes. And when you finish reading the article you keep criticizing, you may learn that these are what the Navajo just successfully sued back from the state, after the state tried to lay claim to them.
.
> I said it was poorly written because
I already told you once that you made me feel bad by trying to say this.
I'm not interested. Thanks.
.
> > In addition, I do not believe it is the true to say:
> The entities they are dealing with are soveirgn nations - entirely distinct countries
That's nice. It is, though.
.
> > every single source of water to New Mexico flows through the land of either The Nuntzi, the Navajo, the Goshutes, the Shoshone, the Shivwits, or the Koosharem.
> I think (but am not certain) that you're describing inflows to the area of the state.
No, I meant the words I said
.
> I think you might be imagining that I'm not aware of ... the tribes' arguments in this matter.
The things you are saying are directly contradictory to a correct understanding of the matter, so I don't believe "imagining" is actually the right word here. I think it's "discovering."
.
> I entirely agree with the terms of the settlement
Sir, the settlement is what was overturned. The thing that we're discussing is a judgment, not a settlement.
This is like someone suing someone for breach of contract, and in attempting to support them, saying "I agree with the contract."
If you support the settlement, that's saying New Mexico is right, and the water should continue to be taken.
It's very difficult to take legal discussions seriously with someone when they misuse basic concepts.
We seem to be reading different lawsuits. Here's the ABQ Journal again in 2018, describing an earlier phase of the legal process that was (almost certainly) settled in 2021:
> State government recently got a big legal victory when the New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld a landmark water rights settlement with the Navajo Nation.
[ ... ] Although the “result” of the April appeals court decision authored by Judge Pro Tem Bruce Black was correctly in favor of settlement, Black’s opinion held incorrectly that water in the San Juan River through New Mexico “is ultimately subject” to federal government control and “denies the State’s jurisdiction over its own waters,” says the petition filed Friday at the high court.
From the 2021 article that you cited:
> The New Mexico Supreme Court recently decided to let stand a Court of Appeals decision that the Engineer’s Office says would rob the state of its ability to regulate water rights in New Mexico.
Here's you, just now:
> Sir, the settlement is what was overturned. The thing that we're discussing is a judgment, not a settlement.
I do not see to square the reporting in the ABQ Journal with your claim that the settlement was overturned.
Do you have some links to the suit you're saying was brought by the Navajo Nation? I have been unable to find anything about such a suit. The only one I can see is the suit against the federal government regarding access to water from the Colorado
> It’s the second recent court victory for Navajo Nation water rights. Last month, all challenges were dropped from a settlement over the tribe’s access to the San Juan River.
which, like the ABQ Journal pieces, suggests that the settlement was upheld, and the challenges to the settlement were denied.
Separately, if you literally meant this:
> every single source of water to New Mexico flows through the land of either The Nuntzi, the Navajo, the Goshutes, the Shoshone, the Shivwits, or the Koosharem.
then I'd appreciate gaining an understanding of which of the tribal nations you've named, or any that you haven't named, lay claim to the source or basin of the Pecos. In my research on this, I couldn't see any sign of those tribes holding claims on that land. The same question would apply to the other rivers that flow out of the Sangre de Cristo. If any native people had a claim to that, I would expect it to be some/all of the Puebloans.
Even with it spelled out in your own quote, you can't admit the mistake
This is not good faith and I have no interest in arguing with your most recent use of a search engine
If you had no web browser you wouldn't be able to write a word about this
You haven't read the articles about the lawsuit, much less the lawsuit itself
No understanding is coming for you, because you'll just argue with it then ask for more until someone gives up, so that you can feel like you were right all along
The quotation literally verbatim agrees with what I said about your error, word for word, and you're still pushing
I asked you for a single reference to the lawsuit you're referring to. It seems that's too much for you.
My quote from the ABQ Journal said "upheld a landmark water rights settlement with the Navajo Nation". You said "Sir, the settlement is what was overturned". Then you avoid explaining this by claiming bad faith.
Having now read a good chunk of your comment history on HN, I think it's time to bow out of any attempt to discuss this with you. A persistent failure to provide citations, frequent bad-faith style of discussion, hand-waving assertion-from-self-invented authority seem common.
That said, if there actually is a lawuit by the Navajo Nation that overturns the settlement reached with NM, I would actually like to know more about it.
This is another example of what I mean by complex sovereignty, from the SFNM today:
> Last month, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed 10-year intergovernmental agreements with the leaders of two pueblos — Picuris and Pojoaque — but other tribes are still not allowed by the federal government to grow marijuana.
What you may not know is that none of those tribes honor that requirement, much like California for 30 years.
There's no "complex soverignity" here. US marijuana law entrenches a great many casually illegal things because nobody's powerful enough to fix them through the DEA budget.
Highlights include that marijuana is on the schedule 1 list under two different names, and extacy 3; that marijuana is also on the schedule 2 list, despite that nothing is permitted to be on multiple schedules ever; and that the entire prohibition was never legal in the first place, as it's just Nixon's extension of the illegal tax stamp scheme.
You'll have a very hard time convincing anyone with even a passing familiarity with the law that American marijuana laws are a good example of a system working as expected.
Also, since you seem to be holding yourself up as a knowledgeable expert, the state level requirement was stricken in 2020, and a pact with the tribes was signed a month and a half ago
Not only is your example incorrect; it's also not true anymore
