Here is an interesting article from Project Censored. It’s about the privatization of water. Naturally I think this is a no brainer, the worlds water should not be treated like a bankable commodity. It’s bad enough that most of our other natural resources are exploited for profit, even the air we breath, but witholding water for profit might just be a form of ultimate evil. Of course there is always a cost associated with everything, and we do pay to extract, filter, and deliver our clean water. But it seems to me that if we go the route of “privatization” and “deregulation” of water the same way we have energy the potential for abuse is huge.
I live in Michigan and the debate over selling water is starting to become an issue here. Being surrounded by the largest fresh water area in the world, it’s a major concern. It has been discussed by the state legislators for the past year or so.
The majority of the states residents are solidly against it for several reasons.
1.The Great Lakes don’t have any major rivers flowing into it to replensish the water quickly. It is conceivable for them to actually run the well dry.
The water levels in the Great Lakes and other water within the state are at record low levels. In my area, we’ve had a pretty wet spring, but not the entire area.
3.Hi Opal!
The Lakes are one of our greatest sources of tourism revenue, we really don’t want to spoil it. We’ve had to fight tooth and nail to keep them clean. (I remember when you could set Lake Erie on fire. Ewwww.) After working so hard to keep it clean, why sell it?
I haven’t heard anything about any other state on the Lakes selling any of the water, and I doubt Canada would go for it either. Canada is usually pretty conservative about conserving natural areas.
Any Canadians out there know if Canada is thinking about selling Great Lakes water? I haven’t seen anything about Canada selling water, so I’m just going on assumptions.
I too live next to the Great Lakes (Chicago in my case). As an aside IIRC the Great Lakes represent 2/5 of the world’s available fresh water. I think Lake Baikal in Russia has another 1/5 leaving 2/5 for everybody else.
While I certainly feel water shouldn’t be ‘owned’ per se I don’t see how everyone should have a right to the water a few miles from me.
If you choose to live in Phoenix for example (basically a desert area) why do you suppose you should get Great Lakes water? And if you do get it why shouldn’t you pay a premium for it? It’s a choice to live in a desert and enjoy the fine weather (fine because it doesn’t rain much). If you want tons of cheap water move back towards the Great Lakes and deal with the miserable winters and humid summers and the otherwise perpetually gloomy weather with only a nice day here and there.
(This reminds me of a Sam Kinison skit where people bringing food relief to starving Ethiopians finally realize that the people who are starving live in a desert where nothing grows so it mught be prudent to move…of course Sam was a LOT funnier than this suggests.)
SHADY: “Riiiiiight. C’mere a minute. I’m sellin’ something ya might be interested in.”
ERNIE: “What’s that?”
SHADY [making sure no one else is looking]: “Air.”
ERNIE: “AIR?!!”
SHADY: “Shhhhhhh!”
ERNIE: “[sub]air?[/sub]”
SHADY: “Riiiiiight.”
Damn, I can’t remember the middle part of that sketch. Suffice it to say that the Shady Character sells Ernie a whole bottle of air (but not the bottle itself, Ernie has to hold the air in his hands) for the bargain price of … one nickel.
I am not sure exactly what the dabate is. Amybe someone can fill me in.
If it is about moving water from places where it is plentiful to places where it is scarce, I believe that is already being don on massives scale. From northern to souther california for instance. I can’t see anything wrong with this assuming it is doen in such a way to minimise ecological repercussions.
The entire LA area could not exist if it were not for water brought in from very far away. People need water wherever they live. I can’t see any point in making them live by the water. You can transport water like you can transport anything else.
Can someone explain to me in simple terms what it is we are debating? I think I am missing something.
Increasingly, municipal water supplies are being found to contain contaminants. I know around here (Central PA) there’s usually a boil order in one or another surrounding community every month or so in the summer. Even our city water (Altoona has 50,000 people) has tasted very sulfury or acid at times. There was a period of about two years where we were drinking water almost exclusively from the two-gallon supermarket jugs.
Not everyone has good water all the time. And of course, there are always those who do it because it’s “the thing to do”. But I doubt the folks buying Roaring Spring or Deer Park brand water are the same as the Perrier or Evian crowd.
Farmers here are actually charged for using water which falls on their own propertyif their usage exceeds an amount arbitrarily determined by the NSW government.
You misspelled “Increasingly, municipal residents are getting paranoid about ‘contaminant’ levels in water supplies that wouldn’t raise an eyebrow 50 years ago.” Hope this helps.
This is an issue of no small concern for me in the past year, given some projects I have worked on.
I’m afraid I have to hazard the opinion, which I will not be able develop due to other constraints, that Needs2know is fundamentally wrong.
However, neither is it so simple as simply establishing water markets, as water is clearly a “good” (product/something for consumption) which experiences market failure (i.e. pure market solutions will not achieve optimal solutions without some degree of interventions).
On the other hand, in areas of water scarcity pricing water to recover usage costs and support infrastructure investments/maintenance, to encourage higher value usage (an area of market failure also), as well as encourage conservation is ** imperative **. In well-watered areas, obviously this is less an issue (ergo the incomprehension of many Americans), however here in the Middle East disaster – real live apocolyptic disaster-- looms within a generation or so.
Unpriced water leads – emperically this is absolutely clear-- to wasteful, environmentally harmful usage. There is absolutely no doubt about this. However, it’s not clear how to address this. There is a large and as of yet contradictory literature on how to ‘price’ water and what market mechanisms to introduce. I believe in the past I have cited to some of the literature. Unfortunetely I don’t have the materials on hand.(*)
I would suggest that de-regulation/pricing shows some of the same problems that flowbark discussed in re electricity – although there are differences. There are challenges to introducing and pricing water through private service providers and I suggest that water will long if not always remain a natural monopoly, but on the other hand there is no rational basis for dismissing water rights/partial market pricing of water usage, and indeed many reasons (economic and environmental**) to encourage the same. By the way, the 26 May-1 June issue of The Economist addresses in an article on Texas some of these very issues (see page 55).
Ah yes, in re the linked articles, the I was only able to read the summary however, based on that it struck me as fundamentally wrong-headed, without a proper-understanding of the economics, political economy or natural limitations in re water. I’m afraid this is more scare- mongering, and poorly informed or thought-out scare-mongering at that (wave the anti-corp anti-globalization flag w/o the slightest reflection.) Suggesting as one link’s summary does that the World Bank is backing simplistic privitization of all water supplies or something along those lines is a gross distortion. I have worked with — perhaps collaborated and corresponded with is a better turn of phrase — the WB responsible for this section as well as read their literature. They are quite cautious — not raving Cato Found folks these — and I believe they have solid empirical support for the measures they suggest.
(*: The World Bank online site should have links to articles on water and pricing as they do substantive research in the area. The articles should lead to fruitful cites for those who might wish to pursue although some of ther material may be fairly technical.)
(**: as in many things, I believe that rational analysis of both economic and environmental issues leads to a convergence of goals.)
In countries where water is scarce it has been bought and sold for centuries. I can’t see what is wrong with that. We pay for every other natural resource we consume, whether it’s oil, ore, timber,… or is it that now everything will belong to everybody and we can just take as much as we like?
And yes, someday you will pay for air. That is life. When clean air becomes scarce enough you will pay for air. If you live in a polluted city and you have air-treatment equipment, you are already paying for air.
Needs2know - Let me explain something to you. If natural resources were not “exploited for profit”, they would be gone in a few generations. Markets for comodities like oil lumber or drinkable water exist because they are in limited supply. Putting a price on natural resources helps us conserve them. People won’t conserve water or gasoline just because you ask them to. People WILL conserve when prices force them to decide between how much they WANT and how much they actually NEED.
In my experience, the only people who consider holding anything for profit as “evil” are people who think they shuold have free access to everything without having to pay for it. The problem with that is that EVERYTHING you can possibly purchase or consume (including water) comes to you at the expense of someone elses labor. Those people deserve to be compensated for their time and effort.
You should probably collect your research from sources other than “Lone Gunman” style conspiracy sites.
I buy it because the water in my town is full of lead and tastes like its been filtered through someones ass.
The federal government of Canada says that it is not considering selling bulk fresh water, but last week it put a request for bids for research firms to estabish how a price for bulk water should be determined. It remains to be seen if this is truly an attempt at determing the true value (e.g. including environmental costs) as opposed to the free market value, or if there really is something afoot concerning.
The provinces are opposed to buld frech water export, with the exception of Newfoundland, which has rcently said that it intends to begin bulk exports.
This has caused a large fuss in Ontario, the province which is on the Great Lakes, for it is feared that if Newfoundland starts bulk freshwater export, then there it is supposed that this will commodify water, and bring it under the North American Free Trade agreement (although this can be debated), which will greatly limit Ontario’s desire to be able to use its own resources without having to compete against demand from the US midwest and west, and will have negative environmental impacts.
The federal government has waded in against Newfoundland, but constitutionally may not have a leg to stand on, or a bladder to float on, or whatever.
I live on Lake Superior. Please tell me how the water here arrives at the expense of someone else’s labour.
It seems to me that it arrives here as part of its journey through the water cycle, and has nothing to do with any person’s labour.
My end of town is considering drawing water from the lake. If we decide to do this, it will be paid for out of our own pockets, not someone else’s.
If someone else from thousands of miles away and from another nation commodifies our water after being unable to adequately conserve its own water resources, then they will profit from their labour and we will be left having to deal with the negative environmental impact and the negative economic impact.
In short, why should I have to pay through increased costs and decreased opportunities simply to bring economic benefit to an already richer nation?
Muffin, I think you are missing the point. First, it is debatable whether you buy act of living closer to the water own it more than someone who lives farther. Let’s assume the state owns the water. They are not forced to sell it but they can if they want. Then someone somewhere else can buy it after paying the cost of acquisition, transport (treatment, whatever). what is wrong with that? Should the people in Texas say “To hell with the rest of the country, we are keeping our oil and not sharing it”. Well, It would be not only selfish but pretty dumb. They make money selling oil. If Michigan can make money selling water, it seems a pretty good deal to me. I just can’t see this “money is the root of all evil” attitude. Why is water any different from oil or any other resource? Is Michigan so self sufficient that it needs to buy nothing from the outside?
The first problem with your approach is that it does not assign a true cost to water or air.
You are only looking at the market price, rather than the true cost which should include costs such as secondary econimic costs, environmental costs, social costs and the like.
For example, my town on Superior does a nice business as a major port. We are accutely conscious of the water levels on the Great Lakes because the freighers must reduce their loads more as water levels drop. As the water drops, the shipping industry takes a hit and the rail industry picks up, forcing a loss of jobs at the elevators and harming the town’s economy.
I have also lived in a number of communities on the lower Great Lakes, where it is common for communities to draw water from the lakes. If water levels go down significantly, they will have to rebuild their intakes, which will have a huge price tag attached. The local price of water will have to be raised dramatically, and this will hit industry, making these communities less able to compete for industry.
The open market price of exported bulk water will not do a thing to help us, other than perhaps bring in a relatively small amount of tax dollars and a very few jobs. This does not weigh well against the harm it will do to us. If you could determine a price which adequately compensates and provides additional profit after including all costs, then you would have something to work with, but to assume that the market price reflects all costs is incorrect.
When looking at your air example, I suggest that again there is a gross inequity in what you propose. Should the people in an industrial area reap the economic benefits of their industries while people downwind suffer the pollution without any economic benefit? I think not.
For example, there is a fair bit of air pollution which crosses from the US midwest into southwestern Ontario, choking out the locals. This leads to increased costs in Ontario concerning health care, productivity, and general enjoyment of life. There some economic benefit in Ontaro (e.g the inter-related automobile industries), but not that much when compared to the costs. Folks in the US benefit, while folks Ontario wheeze. Meanwhile, places in Ontario spew out their own waste onto communities outside of Ontario. For example, Sudbury’s smelters used to do a pretty nasty number on Quebec’s downwind maple sugar industry.
(I realize, of course, that when states and provinces are compared, Ontario is one of the nastier in terms of both spew per person and overall spew, so I’m not suggesting that the US is beating up on Ontario. It just happens that the prevailing winds go from the US to Ontario.)
The second problem with your aproach is that it does not address the problem of power imbalance.
If the highest bidder is to be permitted to have its way with resources, then the US will be able to take what it wants from Ontario by virtue of it already being significantly richer.
In Ontario few jobs or revenue will come from the export of bulk water because the canals and pipelines will be built in the US. As I prevously stated, the costs to communities and to industry will increase as water levels decrease, so overall Ontario will be less competitive. This will cause the already existing power imbalance to expand, and make it even more difficult for Ontario to retain real control over its resources and its economy.
In short, we in Ontario do well with our water, and will not do well without it, but we can not afford to get into a bidding war with the US midwest and west for our water, for we will surely lose. This is a common plight for resource based economies. A strong industrial base supported by a resourse rich economy is one thing, but a resource based economly with a relatively small industrial base is quite another. When compared against the US, Ontario is very much a resouce based economy, and will be harmed in its abilities to develop if it has to compete against the more powerful US to make use of its own resources.
Unfortunately, Ontario is not in a position to simply say no to bulk water export. If any of the states on the Great Lakes decides to export in bulk, it will affect Ontario by virtue of the lowered water levels. Even if the US states say no to bulk export, it may be foisted on Ontario by Newfoundland, which is nowhere near either Ontario or the Great Lakes, but due to the way NAFTA was drafted may force Ontario to permit bulk export from its Great Lakes if Newfoundland permits bulk export from its rivers flowing into the Atlantic.
I find it interesting that the pressure for bulk export is external to the people of the Great Lakes basin, be the pressure originating from the US midwest and west, or from the Canadian east, and the matter is greatly complicated by the international division of the Great Lakes. I submit that the people of the Great Lakes basin should be permitted to determine whether or not to export, and if so then how and to what degree, for the simple reason that they have to live with the consequences. This in an empowerment issue, and your approach ignores this.
If you are suggesting that people in a region should not have the right to conrol and benefit from their own resouces, should not have to compete externally for the use of their own resources, and should have to pay indirect costs created by the misuse of resources by people in other regions, then we a fundamentally at odds.
“If you are suggesting that people in a region should not have the right to conrol and benefit from their own resouces, should have to compete externally for the use of their own resources, and should have to pay indirect costs created by the misuse of resources by people in other regions, then we a fundamentally at odds.”
Muffin, there is nothing to prevent the states from limiting the export of water or from taxing it to their hearts content. That does not go against having a free market. So don’t put words in my mouth or make assumptions which are not warranted.
But if you want to get a break in the price of any commodity just because you happen to live near where it is produced, I think that is an unwarranted distortion of the market. People should have the same right as you have to buy that water. You should not have more right to it than they do. If they are willing to pay more it means it is more valuable to them than it is to you (especially since they have to pay for the added cost of getting it there. I do not see why you would have the right to waste cheap water while others who need it more are prevented from getting it.
Protectionism of that sort is very negative to the economy. Imagine Texans decide they want cheaper gasoline so they will get cheap gas in Texas and the rest of the country can pay more. It is the same logic. every state could do the same thing with whatever resource they have. It would be a disaster for the economy.
Obviously you can set ecological limits, taxes, etc. But to say you have more right to that water than anybody else is IMHO just wrong. We all have the same right to that water if we are willing to pay the price. You have no more right to it than anybody else. If the water should not be taken, then it should not be taken by anybody. If it can be taken, then it should be available to all.
