And what about the Native Americans that lived there before that? etc.

I don't disagree, Somewhat recently a Federal Judge ordered that the Navajo Nation wasn't entitled to the Colorado River that they had been using for thousands of years. This is what happens when the government steps in to redistribute a resource to who they "think" deserves it rather than to those who were historically entitled to it. Legalized theft, plain and simple.

Ok, great. Let's undo all those peaky 'big gubmint' deals you dislike so much and return the land to it's original owners. You're on the side of small government and historical ownership claims, right? Hard to imagine a smaller government or more viable historical claim than the obvious one.

I disagree: this is what happens when you have structural racism. Here, it’s either individuals stripping others of their long held traditions, property rights, and society. Or it’s an organized government transgressing.

Less government wouldn’t prevent this outcome. A more just one that doesn’t ignore the rights of natives would.

Your great, great grandfather probably died around the age of 40 before the transplants and modern society advanced the medicine. He would probably be in favour of living longer than dying early.

I’m actually curious how people make arguments while referring to a completely different period of time with its own problems.

I know this is a tangent, but it’s unlikely great grandpa only lived to 40. Even 100 years ago, someone who was 39 would be expected to live another 28 years on average.

All those low life expectancy numbers were due to high infant- and childhood-mortality rates.

That nitpick aside, yeah gramps’ prior claim should not be given the weight it has.

So the descendents of someone who secured a deal based on a completely different socioeconomic context and then died over 100 years ago should be given priority over those who live today and those who live tomorrow? Sounds like theft to me.

That's kind of how property rights work. So if you're not going to go full "property is theft", then you need to show why water rights are different from the right to, say, the land (or the minerals on the land, or the timber on the land, or...)

And if you are going to go "property is theft", well, you're going to have to justify that with more than just the slogan itself, because it's a huge change, and the bigger the change the more justification you need for it. And you're going to have a hard sell, because people like owning stuff.

Well you got me, I'm one of those "property is theft" / "ACAB" nutjobs.

But also, federal/state/municipal authorities do eminent seizure on private property all the time, when it is necessary for a larger public need. Forcing title holders to sell back their "water rights" and then putting them on level footing isn't that much different, is it?

No, but there's that whole "just compensation" bit. That's a perfectly valid route to go, but it might be pricey.

If your great grandfather was growing alfa alfa to send it to cattle feed lots in Saudi Arabia all the while risking the lives of his fellow pioneers who lived next to him, he wasn't entitled to that water in the first place.