Renting from a mountain. Leasing land from the closest river.
The costs, interests and things of value are different for a river compared to a private landowner. And so the nature of the contract changes, what is exchanged in return for a place to live changes.
For a river, longevity matters. Ecological health matters. Considering the impact on others matters. Sharing resources matters.
There would be a financial component, sure. Some of the costs borne by the river can be paid for with cash. Some of the things the River desires require cash to obtain or operate. But could there be more? Could there be a richer contract between landowner and occupier than simply a financial, commodified transaction.
Perhaps the agreement might include:
- Care for the land. Both managing the negatives (e.g. waste management) and amplifying the positives (e.g. planting food).
- Care for others in the community. Again, both managing the negatives (e.g. limiting disconnection) and amplifying the positives (e.g. sharing resources)