For instance, a program that increased the cost of water once a household hit a monthly or yearly limit would do more to curb water waste than any public relations campaign. Households that had water left over could sell it back to the water district for use by someone else or for storage.Bottom Line: The solution is in front of our eyes. Why does the governor and legislature insist on building more dams? Are construction firms such big political contributors?
12 October 2007
Charge more for water in San Diego
In one sensible editorial, the NC Times staff points out that more money (on dams) is not going to solve Southern California's water problem. Instead, they call for "conservation" and "market-based alternatives that would provide the most effective incentives for responsible water use." BRAVO! In fact, they sound so sensible (like me, it seems), that I prefer to quote them at further length:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think most people view clean water access as an inalienable right, by default. Something the government is supposed to provide for you. This of course isn't written anywhere as far as I know (which isn't far), but until the right people get a wakeup call that clean water is fast becoming a commodity, I don't believe anyone will seriously consider charging for it. That is my humble 2 cents, as a beginning grad student who has just realized she knows nothing :-)
Some say God gave us the water, so it should be free. Olivier Barboux of Vivendi replies, "Yes, but he forgot to lay the pipes."
I think you are saying that people see water as a right, which it is not. Rights are supplied at all costs (e.g., freedom of speech), but the costs of supplying water at all costs are non-trivial; that's why we have problems with water supply!
I think you are saying ("water is a commodity") that water is a good (like oil, gas or electricity) that has value and must be rationed by price. I agree.
Post a Comment