Just spitballing...
Would this be slightly more palatable if:
-current landowners were required to pay all costs associated with getting the water from the canal/pipe to their fields as far as setup is concerned.
-at time of sale, when it happens, current landowner is only entitled to the value of the dryland prior to the establishment of the irrigation district plus accrued inflation of similar dryland plus the out of pocket costs they had to incur? Anything extra would go towards paying back the cost of the infrastructure?
Would this be slightly more palatable if:
-current landowners were required to pay all costs associated with getting the water from the canal/pipe to their fields as far as setup is concerned.
-at time of sale, when it happens, current landowner is only entitled to the value of the dryland prior to the establishment of the irrigation district plus accrued inflation of similar dryland plus the out of pocket costs they had to incur? Anything extra would go towards paying back the cost of the infrastructure?
Comment