23 Nov 2010

Speed blogging

  • This 1993 report [pdf] discusses how "price regulation of water utilities has generated several forms of inefficiency. First, poorly designed rates misallocate water among different consumers and may result in insufficient revenues to cover costs. Second, the lack of incentives to minimize water-provision costs creates cost inefficiency. And third, scarce regulatory resources are wasted when the costs of regulation exceed the benefits."

  • Clean water for carbon credits is not a total scam, but it's certainly not the solution to poor water management corruption in developing countries or global warming.

  • "When Research Turns to Sludge: It’s not just corporate funding that creates conflicts of interest. Even government and nonprofit funding can have strings attached." An interesting case study of how corporations try to control research on pollutants and health risks in sewage sludge.

  • More crazy shit from China: "Local officials in China's arid northwest launched a new push for a vast water-diversion project that would pump raw seawater thousands of miles from the coast to the deserts of Xinjiang...to fill Xinjiang's dried-up salt lakes and desert basins in the hope that it will evaporate and encourage rainfall over drought-stricken areas of northern and northwestern China."

  • California is getting ready to monitor groundwater but "there are no penalties for failing to comply with reporting requirements." Useless.
HTs to JB, TM and DR


  1. Re: CA monitoring groundwater below. You missed the financial Incentive approach to this effort -- no State grant or loan funds allowed if no gw monitoring occurs in a gw basin. Just that alone has gotten Siskiyou County to finally take notice and react -- in a positive We Can Do This!

    Your support for the traditional Stick approach of penalties smacks of the Big Government method that you supposedly don't encourage?!

  2. @SS (1) Some places do not care about state funds, so they will remain mis-measured. (2) I don't agree with ANY subsidies for water users; they should pay their full cost. (3) The State needs a full dataset to do anything right (water markets in particular), and the State decides who uses the water, so this is not big government as much as good stewardship. (Despite these facts, farmers, led by CFBF, are suing to rescind permit fees. Someone doesn't understand who owns the water!)

    BL: I would have done it differently.


Read this first!

Make sure you copy your comment before submitting because sometimes the system will malfunction and you will lose your comment.

Spam will be deleted.

Comments on older posts must be approved (do not submit twice).

If you're having problems posting, email your comment to me