4 ms·

I mean, sure, if you're happy with charging people more the more they use. Otherwise, you are hurting people who aren't the cause of the problem. Municipalities

I mean, sure, if you're happy with charging people more the more they use. Otherwise, you are hurting people who aren't the cause of the problem. Municipalities and individuals are using a severe minority of the water compared to agriculture; the problem wouldn't go away if you cut them out of the system. Just using price without thinking about who's paying would lead to massive corporations and conglomerates which can afford it continuing to abuse the resource while smaller orgs and individuals who can't suffer. Which is why price is a bad method for distributing a resource for which equitable access matters (eg it's more important for homes and hospitals to have water than it is for other businesses to have water).

yellowapple 4y ago
> I mean, sure, if you're happy with charging people more the more they use. Are you saying we shouldn't be happy with such an arrangement? Charging people more the more they use seems maximally fair. > Just using price without thinking about who's paying would lead to massive corporations and conglomerates which can afford it continuing to abuse the resource while smaller orgs and individuals who can't suffer. Only if we consider the payment alone. That money doesn't need to disappear into a void; it could be paid out as a citizens' dividend (a.k.a. UBI) and thus outright subsidize smaller orgs and individuals. If you use more than your equal share, you pay more in water taxes than you get back in dividends; if you use less than your equal share, you get back more in dividends than you pay in water taxes. Hard to get more fair than that. > it's more important for homes and hospitals to have water than it is for other businesses to have water I'd say food is right there beside those two categories - especially since both those categories themselves depend on food.
singron 4y ago
Individuals buy water from their municipality, which is free to reallocate and reprice at that level. However, the municipality can pay market rates at the wholesale level, where water rights are currently a concern. Is there some business with an unquenchable thirst for water that will pay absurd prices per gallon that a municipality wouldn't comfortably match on average? And isn't the status quo much worse where those businesses basically get the water without paying?
- brewdad 4y ago
  What happens when the citizens of say, Stockton, can't afford to pay the rates citizens of Mountain View are willing to pay? Does their town just die?
  - singron 4y ago
    Is water $100/gallon in this scenario? What is the price of water where you would decide you aren't willing to pay and society isn't already some post-apocalyptic hellscape? This is the same reason we don't contemplate heating fuel prices suddenly rising 1000x until entire towns die in their homes from hypothermia. That event would imply the kind of prior economic collapse that makes guns a lot more valuable than money. In reality, scarcity causes a minor rise in price, some less valuable demand becomes infeasible (e.g. alfalfa), some alternative supplies become more feasible (e.g. loss-reduction, desalination, long distance transport), and the price reaches equilibrium well before the point where we start killing each other.

yellowapple 4y ago

> I mean, sure, if you're happy with charging people more the more they use. Are you saying we shouldn't be happy with such an arrangement? Charging people more the more they use seems maximally fair. > Just using price without thinking about who's paying would lead to massive corporations and conglomerates which can afford it continuing to abuse the resource while smaller orgs and individuals who can't suffer. Only if we consider the payment alone. That money doesn't need to disappear into a void; it could be paid out as a citizens' dividend (a.k.a. UBI) and thus outright subsidize smaller orgs and individuals. If you use more than your equal share, you pay more in water taxes than you get back in dividends; if you use less than your equal share, you get back more in dividends than you pay in water taxes. Hard to get more fair than that. > it's more important for homes and hospitals to have water than it is for other businesses to have water I'd say food is right there beside those two categories - especially since both those categories themselves depend on food.

singron 4y ago

Individuals buy water from their municipality, which is free to reallocate and reprice at that level. However, the municipality can pay market rates at the wholesale level, where water rights are currently a concern. Is there some business with an unquenchable thirst for water that will pay absurd prices per gallon that a municipality wouldn't comfortably match on average? And isn't the status quo much worse where those businesses basically get the water without paying?

brewdad 4y ago
What happens when the citizens of say, Stockton, can't afford to pay the rates citizens of Mountain View are willing to pay? Does their town just die?
- singron 4y ago
  Is water $100/gallon in this scenario? What is the price of water where you would decide you aren't willing to pay and society isn't already some post-apocalyptic hellscape? This is the same reason we don't contemplate heating fuel prices suddenly rising 1000x until entire towns die in their homes from hypothermia. That event would imply the kind of prior economic collapse that makes guns a lot more valuable than money. In reality, scarcity causes a minor rise in price, some less valuable demand becomes infeasible (e.g. alfalfa), some alternative supplies become more feasible (e.g. loss-reduction, desalination, long distance transport), and the price reaches equilibrium well before the point where we start killing each other.