The problem is that water is necessary for survival; French Champagne is not.
I don’t disagree with that. The price people pay for water is too low in the U.S. and increasing the price would help conservation.
The quick filling aquifers have a more of a problem with pesticides and industrial pollution entering them. About a third of Wisconsin has this problem. Atrizine is a real problem and in banned in many areas. Some more areas have been added to the Atrizine ban this year.
After some googling, I found a USGS page describing the problem in brief, as well as a map of which parts of the country are seeing aquifer depletion.
Which is exactly what they’re doing here in L.A. Good thing my landlord pays the water bill.
What’s that supposed to mean? Many things are necessary for survival. Food, clothing, medical care, a place to live in… So you buy them and use them. I do not understand nor share the notion that somehow water is somehow essentially different from other commodities. And, lets face it, people in America who are desperately poor have problems paying rent and food much more than paying the water bill. How much water does a person need for drinking and how much does that cost? Pennies. The “necessary for survival” thing is a red herring used by those who somehow want to propose that water is essentially different from other commodities. It is not. It is best handled by a free market where supply and demand are free to buy and sell.
I was following your argument from economics but I didn’t expect this sudden turn to raise the price of water. This means you are suggesting that either the current price is different than what supply and demand would dictate, or that it should be raised to above the level that supply and demand would dictate.
Is water government-subsidized in most U.S. jurisdictions?
It is true that water is relatively cheap in the U.S., and that people will not get serious about conservation until it affects them economically. But why artificially inflate prices to force conservation that the free-market economy says isn’t necessary?
What an incredibly selfish viewpoint. The idea that he who has the most money should get whatever he wants is a pox on society, one that we have steadily tried to place reasonable limits on for the good of society.
One might as easily say that he who has more strength, or who has better fighting skills gets to do what they want. What good your money if someone else gets to come along and take it from you because you aren’t strong enough to protect it? :rolleyes:
Just what it says. Without water, a person will die (within a few days). Without French Champagne, not so much.
I suggest that clothing and shelter aren’t necessary for survival in some climates.
I noticed that.
I disagree with you. But that’s a matter of opinion, and we’ve strayed from the OP’s question. As you said, ‘waste’ needs to be defined before an answer can be given.
There is a contradiction in that. If there is no need for conservation than there is no need for conservation. The problem is that many local governments are preaching water conservation or even prohibiting certain uses like gardening. This is the wrong way to go about it. If you want to diminish water usage then you need to raise prices so that usage will decrease but the government should not be telling me what I can use the water for. Having artificially low prices will result in shortages and in rationing. Why is it OK for someone to use water for one use and not ok for me to use the same amount of water for another use? We both pay the same for the water. Why can I not use the water for whatever I want?
Selfish viewpoint? That you pay for what you use? In what country have you been living? Because the system where things were distributed by the state “to each one accoding to their needs”, I forget the exact name, I think it started with C, they used that system in the Soviet Union for a while, it did not work out too well. In western countries if you want something you buy it. If you think that is unfair, well, good luck with selling your Utopia. I do not think many people are buying the idea these days.
For the OP: I think most people don’t appreciate just how limited water is. You would probably associate Seattle with rain, but Seattle has water shortages almost every summer. That’s because the little bits of rain we get throughout the year can’t be captured for household usage. Our household water depends on reservoirs fed by snow melt - if we had a winter without snow, we’d have a summer without water and no amount of rain would change that.
This very true. My water bill is about 75% fixed costs for the sewer system (a fixed cost that doesn’t even cover the costs to perform necessary upgrades in the next ten years). The remainder gives me no incentive to save water. When the water line into my house was leaking, it tripled my water usage for a month - and cost me a whopping $10 in water. It was hardly worth paying $3000 to fix the leak when it would take 25 years to pay off in water savings.
I don’t think your Libertopia where the rich get all the water they want while the poor have to make do is an idea many people are going to buy into either. I would much rather see water conservation through regulation than through increased costs.
Well, it is the best system for everything else, food, clothing, housing, … I can’t see what’s wrong with water. Not to mention that water is a minimal part of a person’s budget and the water used for drinking is mere pennies so it is really demagoguery to say the poor cannot afford water. Food and other basic necessities take up much greater part of their budget and nobody suggests they should not pay for it. And for those with truly desperate situations there would be monetary help from government or charity for everything not just water. It is silly to believe there would be people who would have housing, food, clothing etc but would not be able to pay for drinking water. Drinking water is virtually free when compared to housing, food, and other necessities. And the reason there are shortages is that it is so cheap. As long as something is cheap demand will be greater than supply and there is no getting around that.
Hey, I’m coming down on your side. But here’s my factual question, and this is key: Are prices *artificially *low?
If water is so scarce, why is it so cheap?
I do not think there is a universal answer. Every city, every country, every state is a different case. But if there is not enough water to supply the demand then it is a clear signal that the price has been set too low.
Because the prices are not set by a free market but politically by governments (local, state and otherwise)? I can’t think of another explanation.
Providing residential water service is a natural monopoly because the cost of infrastructure if high. If it were an unregulated monopoly, the water provider would underproduce (produce less than the competitive market quantity) to maximize profits, and prices would be higher. Everyone would pay more for water, and the owner of the water system would profit. Competitors would not enter the market, because what are you going to do, have 10 different faucets on your sink to get the best price? For that reason, water prices are regulated, just like other utilities.
This is an important difference between the market for clothing, housing, etc. Those more closely approach competition. Government will be involved in setting prices for water because there is little to no competition in the market. This is the type of market failure that most people agree government should be involved in.
The natural monopoly also means government wants to avoid building new infrastructure (or shipping in water from out of the area at great cost) so that you can consume water to wash your car with a hose during a drought. Most areas can avoid constructing new infrastructure by making more careful use of existing capacity. If they did build a new purification plant just to allow leisure-type consumption during times of shortage, the cost of that infrastructure would get spread across everyone’s prices at all times. It’s not really possible for them to say “OK, you can wash that car, but it will cost you $12 million dollars for the new plant. We’ll put it on your bill.”
Interesting and relevant NYT article on the USA’s aging water infrastructure.
Harriet the Spry said it well: as a commodity, water, like electricity, has inherent complications that frustrate free-market economics to some degree. In many areas where your local government asks you to conserve, the population growth has far exceeded the estimates used when the infrastructure was created decades ago. It’s not easy to just start processing more water - most of the equipment, not to mention the underlying geology/hydrology, has limits.
To the OP, one description of the problem is that we have only one water system: all the water we use is treated as if we were going to drink it. We pee into drinking water, shower with it, wash cars with it, irrigate with it, etc. Treatment to make water fit for drinking is not free. In addition, all our used water is treated as sewage, no matter what might actually be in it. Treatment for sewage isn’t free, either. You’re right to think of the “waste” as being primarily the energy used to handle water (to move it and clean it), rather than the water itself. It doesn’t make it any less wasteful to waste that energy, though, if that makes sense.
Well, sure, that’s clear. But is water government subsidized? That is, is part of our taxes diverted to pay for water infrastructure and ongoing service? Or is it self-sustaining from water revenue? (I understand that the answer may vary.) Although the utility is regulated, the water company still makes a profit, or they wouldn’t exist.
The supply and demand behavior of prices under a monopoly is not the same as in a competitive market but it doesn’t go away. And government regulation in and of itself doesn’t necessarily mean that prices are lower than they would be in a competitive market, although they may be lower than in an unregulated monopoly.
Where I live, and in most places I’ve lived, the “water company” is the city/town, not a profit-making company. I think that’s the norm in the US.
It is NOT the best system for “everything else.” Most utilities are not offered on the basis of “what can the person pay for” entirely. Fire services are not offered on that basis. Police services are not offered on that basis. Streets are not offered on that basis.
Water systems are a public utility. They are not offering a commodity. Thankfully, our government understands the difference; you, apparently, have failed to comprehend it. :rolleyes: