Life, Liberty, and Water

It is illegal to water your own lawn. That is what it's come to here in central Texas. As anyone who lives here knows, we've been going through an enormous drought. From our dead lawns to all the dried up ponds, you don't have to look far to see just how bad it is.

Not only does it make our parks a lot uglier, the drought is actually hurting the Texas economy. As Reuters reported this afternoon[1], the drought has cost Texas "more than $5 billion in agricultural losses." Government officials have noticed. Accordingly, Austin is in Stage 2 watering restrictions[2], which means you can only water for a few hours once a week.

This situation brings up the question: is putting more regulations on citizens the best way of dealing with shortage? Water is owned by "the government"--but doesn't that mean that it really belongs to no one? If property ownership rights were established for water, I believe it would give a lot more reason to conserve water. Though it may seem crazy, let's look at a couple of reasons for water rights.

Currently, you own the water that is directly beneath your property, but, generally speaking, the state owns water that is above ground (rain water, streams etc). Ownership systems like our water have been referred to by some as "the tragedy of commons"--which essentially states that if a resource is held by no one or everyone, there won't be the motivation to keep it in order. In the same way, there isn't much of an incentive to conserve the water that comes out of our hoses and faucets, because it belongs to everyone. Just as you don't have as much concern for a rental car as you do for your own, possessing ownership of an object (such as water) gives you a reason to take care of it.

This is not an unprecedented idea. The natives of Hawaii actually had a system of water-rules for thousands of years in which streams were privately owned. The owner had domain from the stream's headwaters to the sea. Infringement on these property rights was punishable with death[3]. You thought my idea was extreme? Though this is just one example, history shows that shortages are best handled my market forces, not government regulation.

If we gave ownership of water to several different companies, for example, they would have to compete to provide quality,  responsibly use their resources, and would overall run a much more conscientious and effective operation than our government. In fact, Jonathan H. Adler (Professor of Law), of the Cato Institute, said in his 2009 article Warming Up to Water Markets: "water management must shift toward recognition of transferable rights." Meaning water should be bought and sold within a market.

Implementation obviously wouldn't be simple. There would need to be rules ensuring safety, prohibiting abuse, monopolies, and things of that nature. It wouldn't happen overnight, but this system is viable if the proper regulations are put in place.

Because people have an incentive to conserve what is theirs, if we changed the ownership of water to specific owners, I think it would result in water being better conserved, and used more wisely. Water should be a form of property.



[1] Article titled: "With the onset of fall weather, the U.S. South was starting to creep out of a devastating drought that has caused billions of dollars in damages, according to a national drought report issued Thursday."
[2] City of Austin website. "Stage 2 Water Restrictions Begin for Austin
[3] National Park Service. "A Cultural History of Three Traditional Hawaiian Sites on the West Coast of Hawai'i Island".  http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/kona/history1g.htm

The Death Penalty Governor?

Let's kill more people!

That's what the audience seemed to say at one of the earlier presidential debates of 2011. I, for one, was startled by the the widespread applause for Rick Perry's execution record.

Our governor has now gotten a national reputation for being "tough on crime." Consequently, I was intrigued by an article entitled "Should reformers praise or chastise Rick Perry's criminal justice record?" posted Oct. 2, on the Texas political blog Grits for Breakfast. As a consultant for the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition and the Innocence Project, the author does have a bias in this issue, but also more background knowledge than most people.

What I find particularly appealing about this post is how the author goes into many unexplored aspects of governor Perry's criminal justice record. The article is a response to a story in Yahoo News in which the Brother of an exonerated prisoner praised the governor's law enforcement accomplishments. Grits brings up many good points. Firstly, the author looks to Perry's 2005 life-without-parole law that appears to have directly decreased the number of defendants sent to death row. Second, the article notes that Perry's longevity in office contributed to the high number of executions done under his administration. In addition, Grits brings up how little the Texas governor is involved in these cases (indeed, many of these death sentences are from years before the current governor was elected), and strengthens the point with a quote from the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition Chief. The main question seems to be: is he really so tough on crime? The author ends by stating his opinion: Perry is not execution-crazed as some view him, but does not deserve the praise that some (specifically the man in the Yahoo article) give him.

In addition to the ideas, the writing is solid. It started out directly quoting a viewpoint that would be referenced throughout--making sure we are all on the same page. The language and ideas are concrete and easy to follow.
On the other hand, Grits made the sweeping assertion toward the end that Perry had kept tens of thousands out of jail--this had no specific backing.

To sum it up, Grits makes the well supported argument that Perry is not "the death penalty governor" as some might see him, but simply a politician who welcomes extra publicity from an issue that he may or may not have wanted to bring out. However, it has certainly gotten people talking.