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
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The "Key" to oil independence?
What goes up must come down--unless your talking about gas prices. A proposal for an oil pipeline running from Canada to Texas may be a small boost for a sick economy and hurting wallets.
The Keystone XL pipeline is designed to transport crude oil from Canada to the Texan gulf coast to be refined. Before the end of the year, the State Department will decide whether or not to allow Keystone's construction.
Barry Smitherman of the Texas Railroad Commission advocates the pipeline in an opinion piece entitled "Texas Needs the Keystone Pipeline." Published in the Austin American Statesman yesterday, Smitherman's article seeks to persuade citizens, as well as the state, of the benefits of building the pipeline. There is a 30 day public comment period in effect right now, so Smitherman focuses on convincing citizens and state officials to speak out in favor of the pipeline.
Smitherman does a great job of covering the issues. He points out that the Keystone program has been under an extensive three-year federal review (set to continue for a few more months), which has shown the program would generate about 50,300 person-years of employments, billions in revenue, and energy security. He also responds to concerns about the pipeline.
First, the question that's been haunting all politicians recently: where's the money coming from? Smitherman points out the pipeline is not government funded, but is actually privately financed. Another large issue adressed in the article is the environment. The author points to the government reviews that have repeatedly stated there wouldn't be significant environmental impacts.
There are a number of things I would have liked Smitherman to do differently. Firstly, I think he could addressed national security more fully. He asserted that skeptic's opinions where not based on fact, but did not tell what facts upon which it should be based. Also, Smitherman does not specify how much oil will be supplied by the pipeline; which begs the question: will this actually help with energy independence that much? In addition, I think he should have addressed more fully the concerns of states this pipeline will run through. He did mention the tax revenue they will receive, but left us wondering whether a large pipe will be running through people's back yards. Though this is an extreme example, it would have--in my opinion--strengthened his article to address these other concerns as well.
However, as a whole, this article is very solid and does a good job of presenting well reasoned, convincing arguments.
The Keystone XL pipeline is designed to transport crude oil from Canada to the Texan gulf coast to be refined. Before the end of the year, the State Department will decide whether or not to allow Keystone's construction.
Barry Smitherman of the Texas Railroad Commission advocates the pipeline in an opinion piece entitled "Texas Needs the Keystone Pipeline." Published in the Austin American Statesman yesterday, Smitherman's article seeks to persuade citizens, as well as the state, of the benefits of building the pipeline. There is a 30 day public comment period in effect right now, so Smitherman focuses on convincing citizens and state officials to speak out in favor of the pipeline.
Smitherman does a great job of covering the issues. He points out that the Keystone program has been under an extensive three-year federal review (set to continue for a few more months), which has shown the program would generate about 50,300 person-years of employments, billions in revenue, and energy security. He also responds to concerns about the pipeline.
First, the question that's been haunting all politicians recently: where's the money coming from? Smitherman points out the pipeline is not government funded, but is actually privately financed. Another large issue adressed in the article is the environment. The author points to the government reviews that have repeatedly stated there wouldn't be significant environmental impacts.
There are a number of things I would have liked Smitherman to do differently. Firstly, I think he could addressed national security more fully. He asserted that skeptic's opinions where not based on fact, but did not tell what facts upon which it should be based. Also, Smitherman does not specify how much oil will be supplied by the pipeline; which begs the question: will this actually help with energy independence that much? In addition, I think he should have addressed more fully the concerns of states this pipeline will run through. He did mention the tax revenue they will receive, but left us wondering whether a large pipe will be running through people's back yards. Though this is an extreme example, it would have--in my opinion--strengthened his article to address these other concerns as well.
However, as a whole, this article is very solid and does a good job of presenting well reasoned, convincing arguments.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Power Struggle
Protection--the government tries so hard to employ safety regulation. But does it actually help?
A recent requirement from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will mandate the 47% reduction of emissions from Texan power plants by 2012. As Claire Cardona reported in The Texas Tribune on Tuesday, the EPA's rule has angered many in the power industry.
A major objection to the requirement is the manner it was put in place. Texas was not originally part of the rule, so other states (such as Kansas and Oklahoma) where informed of the requirements a year before Texas. Lack of time is what makes compliance so hard for Texan power companies. In fact, a major power producer has filed suit against the EPA because they fear the time limit may force them to lay off hundreds. Though the regulations seem sudden, the article points out that companies should have expected regulations of this sort.
Will this turn out as another state vs. federal boxing match? All we can do is wait and watch these events unfold.
A recent requirement from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will mandate the 47% reduction of emissions from Texan power plants by 2012. As Claire Cardona reported in The Texas Tribune on Tuesday, the EPA's rule has angered many in the power industry.
A major objection to the requirement is the manner it was put in place. Texas was not originally part of the rule, so other states (such as Kansas and Oklahoma) where informed of the requirements a year before Texas. Lack of time is what makes compliance so hard for Texan power companies. In fact, a major power producer has filed suit against the EPA because they fear the time limit may force them to lay off hundreds. Though the regulations seem sudden, the article points out that companies should have expected regulations of this sort.
Will this turn out as another state vs. federal boxing match? All we can do is wait and watch these events unfold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)