It could have been the case where the seniors were only given their rights because it was assumed there were 16.5 million acre-feet, and not 11 million.
Or perhaps the juniors only agreed because they thought there would be 16.5 million acre-feet.
Or the federal government may have allowed senior rights to continue to exist for so long because they thought there would be 16.5 million acre-feet.
The idea of senior water rights, not sharing such an important resource, is inherently unfair. The senior people did nothing to earn more water than anyone else. They didn't put the river there.
It seems there are better factors to consider when deciding how to distribute the water at this point than treaties based on bad data, signed a long time ago, when things were a lot different than they are today.
Seniority doesn't and shouldn't rely any flow assumptions or the agreement of juniors.
I would argue that seniority systems are the most fair, because the junior parties are the ones that drive the scarcity and create the problem.
On a small scale, If a family has been living off a stream for 100 years, and someone wants to move in an use the stream, in makes sense that the newcomer doesn't get access if there isn't enough for both. Similarly, it makes sense that the newcomer go without if there is a shortage.
I suspect in general if 'they were here first' is the only tool in your policy toolbox, you are going to have a bad time of it with growth and resource allocation. It works pretty ok with symmetric situations, but most situations aren't.
I'm not sure what you mean by being the only tool in the toolbox. There's a long list of policy tools once you establish ownership. For example, if I want to turn your house into a public park, I can raise a tax to buy it instead of just taking it from you.
You argued that "seniority systems are the most fair" and I pointed out they often don't work that well. I'm not sure why you brought in eminent domain, but agree that it can be a more reasonable way to resolve the friction, rather than just screwing someone over.
In general water rights (even moreso than mineral, air, etc.) are notoriously hard to get "right", and nobody seems to have managed so well that it's the obvious approach to follow.
Do you have any examples a system that doesn't respect senior property rights and work better?
Most land in the united states has followed a possession seniority system since it was conquered and bought from native Americans. Decision makers don't periodically redistribute it without consideration for current ownership or compensation. The few cases where it does happen are widely considered grave miscarriages of justice.
I bring up eminent domain because it is a relevant policy tool in the toolbox that can be used given that a legal doctrine and history of water right ownership has already been established in the west.
Some people think we should just pass laws to dissolve established property ownership. Some people in this thread don't even get that far and think the state should just ignore law and history and simply seize it.
>Are you saying that the problem with seniority is that it clearly solves
Sarcastic quips like this do not promote a productive discussion. The commenter above is probably arguing that the oldest use is not necessarily the most valuable, and relying on stack allocation fails to make the most economically effective use of a limited resource.
I wasn't being sarcastic. They replied the following in a discussion about seniority causing allocation problems.
>Basically there is no need for allocation at all.
They might be saying what you did, but it was far from clear to me. If so, my response would be pretty straightforward:
Seniority settles the question of rights. Buying and selling of rights and water is a very clear and effective way of putting them to the most effective economic use.
If a potential user wants water and can put it to better use, they can simply buy it. If they are the city or state, they can even use eminent domain to force the sale.
Are you saying that the problem with seniority is that it clearly solves the allocation debate and overallocation problem?
Which part do you object to?