Comments (5)

• Steve Peterson

  I have to agree with this wholeheartedly. Also, the Bureau of Reclamation isn't the only culprit: the Corps of Engineers is also very good at water (re)distribution and the politics of water. Just look into the controversies surrounding fish populations in Lake Pend O'Reille and the Pend O'Reille River in Idaho and Washington, as well as the issues with breaching (or not) the chain of dams along the Snake River system and the impacts on agriculture and the environment. It is a headspinning mix of bureaucratic incompetence, entitlement mentalities, NIMBY and all of the other economic and social pathologies that accompany interventionism by government.

  Published: July 12, 2004 12:07 PM

• Harry Valentine

  During the 1950's, the Garrison Diversion Project was conceived to supplement a shortfall in the American water supply. That project proposed to divert water from Canada, via pipelines, into the Western USA. Except that project may have been based on a miscalculation.

  Western Canada has undergone several years of summer drought. This year's bountiful rainfall in Western Canada, may be a fluke. Water levels in the Great Lakes have been dropping for years, to the point where future hydro-electric power generation and future shipping on these lakes may be in question.

  America may have to look at converting toilet water in all coastal cities, to operate on ocean water. As well, the de-salination of ocean water may become a future necessity in several regions of the USA. I've written a few commentaries about Southern Canada's dropping water supply at http://www.quebecoislibre.org , a supply that may not be able to fulfill future US demand.

  Harry Valentine

  Published: July 12, 2004 1:42 PM

• Bob Taft

  Water is the property of the states, rights to its use belonging to those who can make beneficial use of such flows, ownership priority based upon date of filing. Water rights are often sold, most often to municipalities. If you don't use it, you indeed lose it, as it doesn't stay put, except in millions of backyard swimming pools from Los Angeles to Las Vegas to Phoenix.
  Much water is today being purposely wasted by government stealing adjudicated rights for the benefit of trash fish, snails, and other supposedly "endangered" creatures that have political seniority over farmers and ranchers whose existence is now more questionable than that of any "endangered" species has ever been.
  

  Published: July 12, 2004 2:54 PM

• Bill

  "Much water is today being purposely wasted by government stealing adjudicated rights for the benefit of trash fish, snails, and other supposedly "endangered" creatures that have political seniority over farmers and ranchers whose existence is now more questionable than that of any "endangered" species has ever been."

  I see "endangered species" as more of a symptom of a larger problem. A problem that goes right back to this article and the political distribution of water rights.

  I do a lot of resource work in New Mexico, and this system is just plain crazy. You mentioned that rights belong to those who can make
  "beneficial" use of the water based on seniority.

  Very true. The problem is, who defines beneficial? If I want to go buy the most senior of water rights, and leave my water in the stream to aid endangered species because I see that as a beneficial use, I cannot do it. So, I guess as long as politicians make the decisions, some uses are more "beneficial" than others.

  As you can imagine, most of the people I work with on these issues are democrats or even worse, greens, and see a forced government solution as a way out of this mess. They are dumfounded and insulted when I suggest that the way to solve these water problems is to create a market for water. They are arguing for one side of the coin over the other, and I'm telling them to throw the damn coin into the river.

  This past legislative session, a group (Think New Mexico) here put forth a bill that would allow for the state government to buy water rights for the expressed purpose of leaving the water in the stream. I argued that this bill should go farther and allow for private citizens to do the same thing, which of course, fell on deaf ears.

  Until a market is created for water in the west, the problems will continue, and continue to get worse.

  Thanks for the article Mr. Anderson. Unfortunately, I think things will get much worse (and drier) before any viable market based solution ever sees the light of day.

  Published: July 12, 2004 5:38 PM

• Neil Craig

  You are quite right about the price mechanism being the best way to distribute water. On the other hand there is a libertarian conflict here.

  If we accept that right to first use of water is itself a part of a property's value, as mineral rights for example are, then any alteration of these rights by law would be an infringement of property.

  The only way round this would be to allow water rights owners to sell them on the free market. This will mean a fair amount of legal work defining exactly what these rights amount to (does a small farm have the right to sell rights to use all the water IT can use or all the water that can be used?) which, I guess is why lawyers are rich.

  Published: July 13, 2004 3:36 PM