Unbundling Water Rights, Case Study 2, not really.

I don’t have it in me to go through the Humboldt Basin case study, although it gets much closer to the complexity that we see in California.  So we’re done with stepping through each section.  Come back, readers!  Come back, Twitter referrals!  It is safe to come back!

Next week I may do some synthesis, but more importantly, I want to get into the question of what this implies about water markets in California.  Which of the elements of changing to market-based rights (accurately measuring all water, linking each right to a water account, converting water rights to shares, issuing yearly allocations, the preposterous water resource sharing plans, the governance) can be used here?  Which do we need to improve water transfers here?  Is this really better than just reforming water rights the way I want to?  Do Australians like their water market?  Would doing this really avoid any political fights?


Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “Unbundling Water Rights, Case Study 2, not really.

  1. Terry Spragg

    The HBMWD has water available for sale.

    Is this what you are referring to in your comment about a “Humboldt Bay case study?” If so, where would I find this case study and if you have a copy would I trouble you if I asked you to send me a copy?


    *Terry Spragg*

    Send to: *Spraggbag@gmail.com *or see our website at: *www.waterbag.com * or our YouTube video by Googling *”Spragg Bag” *Our team has developed and demonstrated a way to economically transport Humboldt Bay MWD water to any location along the California coast.

  2. onthepublicrecord

    Hi Mr. Spragg. It is a different Humboldt Basin, in Nevada. We aren’t discussing the second case study here:

    Click to access ni_r_15-01.pdf

  3. delveg

    Thanks for the welcome back. II’m sorry there wasn’t much interest in studying it alongside you.

  4. onthepublicrecord

    It was worth it to understand what it would take to convert to an Australian-style water market.