25 January 2010

Water lawyer bleg

A loyal reader asks:
Do you know a lawyer in property rights and takings who might be inclined to write about how owning shares of water might become a more effective guard than regulation against pollution because of lawsuit threats to proptect value of water property?
If you have a name, email me or post it in the comments.

(I know that you can't throw a stone without hitting a water lawyer in California; I am interested to see if one will write a short brief for little or no money! :)

5 comments:

WaterSource said...

Do you really think this inquiry makes sense ?

Chris Brooks said...

Seems like they are suggesting that ownership of water would enable owners to bring trespass suits against polluters. Interesting idea to explore but are there really advantages to having private individuals bring suit against the polluter vs. government, as representative of the public, bringing suit to protect a public resource? Sure you have captive agency problems. But I think it would be less difficult to buy off individual property owners - hmmm, is this Coase-ian bargaining at work. Might it then achieve the optimal level of pollution? And would all owners of the resource be content with this solution?

Anonymous said...

Well, me. Especially since I quit my job and I'm currently unemployed.

But I suspect that the articles of incorporation will not provide the protection that state regulation can.

Anyway, it's worth a look and I don't have anything else going on.

Francis Logan (SBN 163049)
flogan@charter.net

David Zetland said...

@Francis -- I'll vouch for you :)

David Zetland said...

TD says: "Sure; Jonathan Adler at Case Western"