Yes but as you clearly stated the law was "strict" before that they could not impair water quality, yet over the course of time the courts changed that. I under

Yes but as you clearly stated the law was "strict" before that they could not impair water quality, yet over the course of time the courts changed that. I understand the notion of converting everything to private property and having property rights infringements as being the mechanism for enhanced stewardship. However in such a system all matters are then resolved in a civil court. Perhaps I dont understand how the court system works well enough but I would argue that there is a tendency for those who can afford good council to be victorious. Now given the historical context it sounds like you dont actually have a right to sue for water contamination. If you were suddenly granted this right it would constitute an unearned reward as the existing property doesnt contain those rights. So if this were to change I think it would make sense that you pay for this new right and thereby the price of food would decrease. Finally I would agree that it is "loosey-goosey" the way the commons is today. However this is because there is now no concept of the public good because the world has entered zero sum dynamics. Peter Thiel explains this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDkhfm6CYjE&feature=youtu.be&t=1450 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDkhfm6CYjE&feature=youtu.be...