Discussion on:

A capitalist's view on water conservation (or, why a price on water is impractical)

Massachusetts also has plenty of water, but filtering it is costly only to have people water their lawns with it. It is a proven fact in urban and suburban communities that if you scale municipal water prices up as usage goes up, peoples usage will go down.

The trend mentioned here is already happening in New England as many communities are getting out of the municipal water business by outsourcing the filtration, pipe maintenance, etc.

???good???

look love--- w w w - good shop ping 100 - c o m

believe you will love it.

love good go.

...is that there is no realistic price to the end consumer on water. It is highly subsidized to all users, especially agriculture. When I started studying this problem 25 years ago, we had farmers growing rice in a desert environment! And since the water was almost free to the farmers, why shouldn't they?

That we see little private activity in the market for water at a state level or globally is of little mystery: There is no way that any private entity can compete with a state subsidy that practically gives away the end product with little regard to actual cost of collecting and transporting it. (Could you even imagine how we'd consume oil if it was provided in this way)

Whenever something is susbsidized, at best there will be overuse of it, and at worst, there will be contempt in the use of it. It we want farmers, corporations, and individual consumers to respect water, the only way to do so is to make them pay a higher price for it. I seriously question any supposed "capitalist" who can't seem to understand that.

-"I see water from the perspective of an IT-intensive investment that would become a real engine of commerce."

-"Water here is an asset to farmers. They???re so pressed in their economic model that environmental concern is not [impactful] to them. If there???s something more incendiary than raising water prices, it???s raising food prices. They???re desperately trying to lower the cost of their input to make that food....You can force them to do it, but you need to think of their economic model.You could make a world of difference if agriculture handled things better. But I just don???t know how."

-"Look at Google. It???s really changed the world in a lot of good ways. But they never set out to do that. You look at water, and you know you have to do more."

Laura, I suggest you are using the wrong model for looking at water. The big difference between water and, say, the internet, is that it is an essential part of every piece of the planet's ecology. If a widget in the human economy becomes too pricey, it drives competition to develop a cheaper alternative so folks will buy their widget instead of the more expensive one, and this is the process that drives the human economy. But with the planet's water, you cannot come up with an alternative, i.e. you can't substitute going to the movies for it. And, rather than seeing the environmental piece as a small wedge in your pie of customers, you need to put it as the source of your capital. Generally speaking, a healthy environment is going to translate to more water that has been filtered of more impurities. Look at the investment New York made in buying up lots of forests in the outlying river watersheds and you'll see what I mean.

If you start from the premise of ecologically based economics, you'll develop an economic model that will actually be sustainable instead of one that, like mining, is based on boom and bust.

PLEASE delete this account, or prevent it from posting!

...is that there's a growing sector in business (and its attendant parasites...er...lobbyists) that is trying to manufacture a 'problem' from which they can profit by selling their 'solution.' In most of the developed world where a sane public - and by extension a sane public policy - prevails there is no shortage of water. Just as California steals their water and power from surrounding states and expects those states to restrict the use of their own resources to slake the thirst of insatiable, unsustainable and insane growth in California, they are trying to foist these water and energy policies on the rest of the country. There is no energy shortage, for instance, in the rest of the country but to have more power in the grid that they can siphon off, the Cali. cartels want us to ban the reliable and cheap light bulb, for a no more reliable, less functional and more-expensive-by-magnitudes fluorescent bulb reminiscent of Escher's work at its most bizarre.

The key to the whole issue and the driving force behind the abhorrent concept that governments - whether local, state, or federal - should charge for any use of water, regardless of the source, is that there is no money to be made from free water.

If they didn't charge at least enough to break even, how would they pay for complying with those on high at the EPA who have handed down all of the regulations?

If you 'll note, I said 'regardless of the source.' These lobbyists and their handlers want us to pay for ALL water...even if its from our backyard wells. Last time I checked, the EPA had not yet stuck their collective noses in MY well!

Water use in California is split between agriculture, fish, recreational, residential and industrial use. Agriculture gets most of the water, the farmers are given allotments that they have to use or lose what they did not use. Agriculture need for water varies from year to year depending on rain as well as the water supply.

One solution to the excess agricultural water is to allow the farmers to sell the excess water they don't need. The allotments should remain stable so that the farmers can use just the amount needed for the season.

Why should the farmers be allowed to sell water they never paid for while the government foots the bill for pumping the water to them?

Something is wrong with that picture. Oh I see.

People are making money on the backs of the taxpayer.

Whether the farmer is paid for the unused water, trades for the water or given a gold star for his book is beside the point. The point is to give an incentive to not use all the water allowed; otherwise you are trying to count on the goodness of people to not hord or waste water. It is the same problem with government budgets, if you don't use all the money budgeted this year then you risk getting your budget reduced next year. Get rid of the use it or lose it and change it to use only what is needed.

Rather than a system where the taxpayer pays farmers not to use water or the farmer gets the incentive for a service provided at taxpayer expense, the capitalists says to charge them by usage of the water.

Just for the point of discussion, if the first 1 million gallons of water cost a farmer $2,000 (keep it cheap to support farming) and the next 50,000 gallons cost them $1 million, they would reduce their usage below 1 million gallons in a heart beat.

Why do so many of you have a problem with making people pay for something it costs the government to provide? Why dump everything into general taxes? Why not pay by usage?

I'm not saying the government should make a profit. They just need to break even on the cost to provide water. A side effect is to use the rates as incentives for people to conserve.

I'm not sure where the rest of you live, but I have been paying by the gallon for piped in municipal water for over 40 years. They also bill me for municipal sewerage based on water consumption.

This discussion is old news. What is the big deal about paying for water? Only cry babys want everything for free.

The whole argument of government subsidizing water is flawed. Just stop the subsidies and make farmers and everyone else pay a market price for water. Problem solved.

Water is scarce in South Africa yet people seem to have little regard for its scarcity. I think the problem is that the correct pricing mechanisms are not instituted and all these subsidies cloud the picture. I thought human society is enlightened enough to make sense of these things. What hope is there that we'll be able to solve the more pressing challenges confronting society if such a thing as water pricing and use is befuddling our politicians?

"an IT-intensive investment that would become a real engine of commerce. "
"streams of success"

Wow, she's a walking buzz-word factory!

"Why would you conserve water in the urban environment when the farmers are flooding the fields?" Because people have to eat. Food. Food requires water.

Im not that much of a online reader to be honest but your sites really nice, keep it up! I'll go ahead and bookmark your website to come back in the future. Many thanks
dentist marketing