Reply #6: The Bear and the Dragon

[dcfirefighter]

Water, like all non-labor produced (natural) wealth, should be shared. Unlike labor-produced wealth, sharing such wealth doesn't decrease the total amount produced: it is either produced naturally or it isn't produced at all.

One method of 'sharing' such commonwealth would be allow each resident unlimited access to the resource, a recipe for resource depletion and an exacerbation of "Them that has, gets".

One method of 'sharing' would be to allot each resident of a rainfall cachement area an equal share of the annual rainfall, or some other sustainable amount. Practically, this would be very difficult.

For the net same effect, the governments of an aquifer or drainage basin could auction off limited (in scope and duration) water rights - in other words, get top dollar from the highest bidders for exclusive access to such rights. This revenue is then shared, fairly equally, amongst all residents, through government services or direct credits. What about the poor, how would they afford water? Simple, they'd buy it, either through their government, or using their credits from those who have the leases.

This may seem more convoluted than it is. First off, without long term ownership, there is no speculative gain to be had in bidding on water rights, so the bidders would only bid on what they could use or sell. Local utilities might bid on enough for their customers - and with the people having credits (or directing their government to subsidize drinking water with the revenue raised by selling water rights) they'd have more than enough money to purchase drinking & sanitation water from the leaseholders. The people who lose out in such a situation are those who currenlty used 'more than their fair share' of water, typically farmers of certain water-intensive crops, usually grown for export or for feed. Instead of growing these unsustainable crops, the market for water would direct the development of sustainable cropping systems. Furthermore, the 'Monopoly Privilege' would be held by the public, not private corporations, though private corporations might compete to make their water leaseholds more profitable : e.g. more efficiently used.