Sorry for being a bit flip in my post. (I send these messages between reading student papers; this may affect the way I respond...) As I understand it, much of the great plains (US and Canada) share the same acquifer and are steadily drawing it down. Similar overuse problems exist to the west as documented in, e.g., the book "Cadillac Desert" by Marc Reisner. (This book is now over 10 years old; I don't know the current situation.) By "Ostromized" I meant cooperative management of common property resources without recourse to coercive, centralized measures. I would prefer this approach myself, but I can't see how it can deal with the scope of N. American water problems. By draconian, I mean: suppose you decide that there is an upper limit to the population that can settle in a particular region of the US west. You could establish binding rules governing immigration, construction, infrastructure development, etc., but I would consider that draconian, both in its directly coercive effects on millions of people and also in light of the enforcement apparatus it would entail. Much better, in my opinion, would be a set of taxes high enough to elicit the same sort of response. I agree that the use of such taxes would pose serious threats to low-income folks. Two responses: (1) Good policy would look for offsetting subsidies and benefits, so that the net impact on low-income people is not negative. (2) There shouldn't be low-income people! Environmental sustainability is one objective but certainly not the only one. We must struggle for true economic, social, and political equality. Peter Dorman ps: Yes, aboriginal rights are always a difficult issue when we Euro-settlers have finished destroying the environment and now want to set things right. Should those who have had little part in the destruction be held to the same remedial rules? (This comes up in fishery protection, wilderness set-asides, etc.) I would like to think that reasonable people can work this out, so that there can be both respect for aboriginal rights and cooperation to restore the environment & resource base. Ken Hanly wrote: > > The Olglalla aquifer. Perhaps those discussing this distinguished aquifer might > enlighten unenlightened Canadians, South Africans, New Zealanders, and Aussies..etc. > as to where this aquifer is, and its significance. I also don't know what Ostromized > co-operative management is as contrasted with unmodified co-operative management. > I appreciate that you don't want to use free markets to allocate water > resources but > if you use price won't that still have the effect of rationing partly on the basis of > income > rather than need. Why is any other method "draconian"? For example, when water > pressure > is low in the summer in Brandon, people in odd numbered houses are required to water > > on one day and even numbered other days...or variations on that sort of schema. Of > course some people cheat but enough obey that it works. No draconian water police are > needed. > I grant that this example may have little relevance to managing water from an > aquifer but > it just shows there are non-draconian ways of dealing with water scarcity that do not > involve a price mechanism per se. > If this aquifer is centred in aboriginal territory, what are native rights, with > regards to usage of water on their territory and off their territory? Do they have > exclusive jurisdiction on their territory and others exclusive jurisdiction outside > of aboriginal territories? It seems that usage of water by those outside native > territory will impact water supply within those terriitories and vice versa. I > thought that was what Brad's original post might have been about. We are free riders > on a Sioux aquifer.... but I guess not... By the way there are at 4 reasonably sized > lakes > within a 15 mile circumference of where I live, not to count innumerable small ponds > (sloughs). If wells ever did dry up it would just be a question of treating the water > that > is widely available. Community wells used to pump water for cattle etc that are > shallow and > often have unpotable water are replenished by precipation. Unless there were a series > of very > dry years this is a renewable resource..These are not arid plains. but parkland. Just > don't > ask for a water pipeline from here to Arizona :) > Cheers, Ken Hanly > > Peter Dorman wrote: > > > I too am all for Ostromized cooperative management of common property > > resources, but the Oglalla acquifer spans too large an area to be > > managed that way. Unsustainable water mining is a problem in large > > parts of the plains and arid west and demands far-reaching policies > > which will affect settlement patterns and not merely agricultural > > techniques. I agree with Brad that choices will have to be made at > > higher levels, and one argument for using prices to implement them is > > that any other system would be draconian. (Note: this does not mean > > that markets in water as a commodity are the answer, because the common > > resource problem, the discounting problem, environmental > > interactions/nonconvexities all point to market failure at the level of > > the whole system. I am advocating using prices as a transmission > > mechanism for decisions made by other means.) > > > > My position is one of unblemished virtue in this discussion, of course, > > because I live in the pacific northwest, currently soaked with water. > > > > Peter Dorman > > > > Michael Perelman wrote: > > > > > > Hardin's story is a myth. In truth, the communities that he describes had > > > customs and institutions that kept the amount of livestock in check. But after > > > the land became privatized all hell broke loose. > > > > > > Brad might be correct about his understanding of the wells, but I want to > > > correct his historical allusion (illusion) about the tragedy of the commons. > > > -- > > > > > > Michael Perelman > > > Economics Department > > > California State University > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Chico, CA 95929 > > > 530-898-5321 > > > fax 530-898-5901
