This guy literally wrote the book on California water law.
5 Likes
Pacific Edge is a semi utopian/ post climate disaster anarchist SF novel by Kim Stanley Robinson. It has a set piece in the middle where they go out to meet a water lawyer and discuss the evolution of water law in California and its origin and general fucked upness and the all round head scratching omplexity of fixing the issues involved. Itâs done in the context of a rhapsodic tribute to the beauty of California from the perspective of a hike in the mountains.
I donât remember many details of the legal rights involved (and by the by: property rights are not, and never were quite like the man in this story thinks they are: they are always curtailed by competing rights, they are not always tied to âownershipâ of the land⌠I could go on at length!) but I found it very interesting that in the California the legal rights are derived from Spanish law concepts.Given how totally fucked water is in contemporary Spain (and the horror of the Spanish polytunnel, near-slave powered, chemically intense, desertifying agricultural miracle and just look at the little trickle which used to be the Guadalquivir when Cristobal Colon would have sailed from CordĂłbaâŚ) Iâm not that surprisedâŚ
3 Likes
Well, it also implies that the ground doesnât collapse above it and remove the space for the aquifer. And the 6000 years is refilling without being used, so there are assumptions on both sides that are going unsaid.
Plus, I felt it important that some people understand that the effects are really long term, so I hope you understand any sarcasm was not aimed at you.
2 Likes
Not at all! I just felt the need to explain myself. Itâs a childish urge: we donât always have to appear to be right and derail every conversation into the niceties of why we werenât really in our minds wrong. But I still do a bit unfortunatelyâŚ
1 Like
You might note, though, that the âwater scandalâ in Chinatown is entirely fictional.
Itâs (very very VERY loosely) based on an alleged âSan Fernando Valley Water scandalâ that took place in a very different period (1905, not 1937) , and it gets the players, the motives, the tactics, and the politics entirely wrong.
Itâs a brilliant film, but anyone who comes away from it assuming that they know more about the history of California water politics than when they went in is fooling themselves.
The knowing-but-cynical âforget it Jake, itâs Chinatownâ references that pop up every time water in California is mentioned are a good measure of just how little real history most people know.
Thereâs been plenty of scandal and intrigue and double-dealing around water in California, but Chinatown is not an informative portrayal of any of it.
2 Likes
Water shouldnât be commoditized, since itâs a necessity to live.
That might be why jerwin has that whole âplot devices in popular entertainmentâ part literally in the sentence just in front of Chinatown. They have noted it. And very well.
1 Like
Capitalism blinded the elites to the point that they see everything and everyone as mere tools for their own success.
So your business excuse is fallible because itâs the whole concept of business that weâre worried about when it comes to morality; especially when they have history of bypassing and manipulating public opinion to obtain and maintain wealth.
1 Like
The portion of the article quoted by BoingBoing specifically notes that theyâre wanting to get around the BLMâs ruling which will trigger an environmental review of the plan.
2 Likes
Same with food, air, land, and shelter.
1 Like
Exactly. Add healthcare to that list. The things we need to live shouldnât be a means of enriching a few.
(Also, Iâm out of likes!)
3 Likes
ah, thatâs @robertmckenna speaking, not me.
1 Like
This brings up a very good question:
Why the hell do we need to commodify anything to begin with?
So some people can make money off of it, which of course is the highest moral good, smart people like Ayn Rand said so⌠And if you disagree, youâre a commie-pinko-scum who wants to control humanity and hates FRRREEEEEEEDOOOMMMMM⌠duh! /s
5 Likes
I feel as though the word âcommodityâ has become detached from itâs original connotation as a a âsubstitutableâ good. A steelmaker doesnât really care where the iron ore comes from; if itâs somehow cheaper to import ore from china than it is to procure ore from the upper peninsula, so be it.
On the other hand, a cell phone with a camera is not a substitute for a Leica. Beyond the Veblen status associated with Leica, the Leica has certain engineering advantages over the cell phone that should translate into better pictures.
We should also, I think, be aware of where goods come from, because it can have moral consequences, as weâve seen historically. Sure, maybe you can get cheaper ore from China, but what does that mean in terms of jobs, who your dollars are supporting, etc. Or to use the example of sugar, it led to a change in slavery as a labor system, which still reverberates in the new world today.
Like it or not, commodities (as theyâve come to be understood and defined under the capitalist system of production) have come to have moral consequences as well as economics ones, and thatâs been true for a while now. We take that for granted at our peril, I think. There is a reason that, no matter how horrible the lived experience of the Marxist state actually was in the 20th century, Marx still has resonance today - he had something to say about these things that emerge out of capitalism and what theyâve changed in our world, good and bad.
2 Likes
Isnât majority of the products (especially the ones that were made from mined materials) we purchased came from forced labor (all of which should be replaced by robots by now)?
Letâs just hope this whole semiconductor thing cools down then.
1 Like
Fair enough, Iâm only responding to someone who wrote five paragraphs explaining that it should be explained to everyone that itâs popular fiction without actually bothering to read one sentence by someone else explaining it is⌠popular fiction.
