The onslaught of news and interest in drought in California, shortage in Sao Paulo, rising sea levels in Florida, and other water-related issues prompts me to go in again.
HERE'S A LINK TO THE AMA
If you're looking for more, check out these posts on California, politics and economics:
- A survey of Californians on their attitudes towards water conservation [pdf]. Flawed, as I also said recently, because choices are still limited to rationing and self-restraint
- Markets and pricing would be more efficient than Governor Brown's command and control
- Another excellent post on California's command and control vs economics
- Higher prices are better than "moral suasion" for water conservation
- The Wall Street Journal goes full 'tard on cause and effect (this was forwarded by Jason Peltier, who works for the biggest welfare recipient in California -- Westlands)
- OTPR says "if you're going to regulate, then ban almonds." Interesting.*
- CA Groundwater fees to the Supreme Court? (Not a Dutch problem [pdf])
- KS groundwater regulation (private rights vs public trust)
- CA is screwed if lawyers are going to decide "highest and best use"
Bottom Line: I'm glad to see more economics in these discussions. Now we only need politicians who can understand and explain how economics can minimize losses from drought and prevent shortages. Here's a handy book that will get you (and them!) started.
* Ironically, I think that OTPR's suggestion may be useful in its "come to Jesus" imposition of $millions in losses on farmers who are basically playing chicken with the government (i.e., "we planted these trees and will lose huge if they do not get water EVERY year.") I think it's time to show that they are driving a Yugo into the freight train of reality.
H/Ts to BB, CD, GH, RM and RM