PW asks:
While I really buy into your thesis about water pricing, but what about, in CA at least, the issue of water rights? Some of these are "use it or lose it" - so farmers have every perverse incentive to throw the stuff around like it was going out of fashion. I think this has to be addressed before a market can even be made to work...Have no doubt! I support property rights, and farmers' rights should be protected. The definition of "beneficial use" should also be expanded to permit selling water (instead of just the things grown with it) as a beneficial use.
Even when I say that farmer's water should be seized, I respect the strong definition of eminent domain (NOT Kelo) and payment of fair market prices.
Bottom Line: Markets will not function unless participants know that their rights are secure.
1 comments:
There is some evidence that the sale of water can be considered "beneficial use", but that still remains a giant bugaboo. I envision a time (soon, I hope) when *not* selling water would be considered waste, unless compelling evidence could demonstrate the water was being put to its highest and best use in situ. Markets can tell us this, not nosy bureaucrats.
Remember, we are the inheritors of a century and a half of case and statutory law that saw development of resources as an overarching public goal. Leaving water in a stream was about as far from a beneficial use as could be imagined; it was considered waste. In the historical context, this was not just settlers being greedy. People had seen the waste and selfishness in Europe, where only nobles could own property, and where vast forests and farm lands lay unused. The astonishing abundance of the West, and the tiny population, made development seem paramount.
I submit this historical farrago in hopes that those of us seeking change will remain respectful, not contemptuous, of the goals and dreams of our predecessors. It makes change happen faster.
Post a Comment