4 ms·

Water is subsidized because it is considered a human right.

Terr_ 11y ago
Yes... and? Subsidizing water for individuals who need to drink and wash? Sure, I can get behind that. However, that's totally different than granting similar rights and subsidies to acres of cash-crops and chemical-refineries!
- studentrob 11y ago
  I assume it is more complex than appears on the surface. Which crops and processes deserve access to cheaper water? How much water will that save? How much will the price of goods go up as a result? What customers will stop buying as a result? How will farmers react? Should the government try not to bite the hand that feeds its people? I haven't read any farm bills or anything about water data but that's what I would do first if I wanted to understand more.
  - Terr_ 11y ago
    > Which crops and processes deserve access to cheaper water? If you're the one trying to champion "water as a human right", then I think it's only fair to ask you where you would draw the lines. What demarcates personal use and commercial use? How many gallons can someone use for their outdoor "washing" pool before you step in and say that they're abusing the system? > How much will the price of goods go up as a result? I don't know, but we have a distributed algorithm for solving it called "capitalism". Like any algorithm, garbage-in makes for garbage-out, and tuning it is a major pain the ass. One of the important inputs is whatever cost on shared-resources (or externalities) imposed by the government.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      Yeah, I do not disagree. I think water regulation should be an open topic. Share data and hold public forums so more parties can work towards a reasonable system that is fair to both businesses and people.
bradleyjg 11y ago
The entities getting (implicitly) subsidized are giant agribusinesses, not poor people. In fact, in the article it says that the residents of San Diego are going to see $5-$7 a month increases for the next 30 years to pay for this desalination plant. Having an annual statewide wholesale auction for water rights would decrease the cost to urban end users, not increase them. But some people are so reflexively opposed to market based solutions that they attack them even when the net result is improvement for the very people they claim to care about.
- studentrob 11y ago
  By saying people are reflexively against market solutions you're assuming they have not put any thought into this. I don't think it is that simple.

Terr_ 11y ago

Yes... and? Subsidizing water for individuals who need to drink and wash? Sure, I can get behind that. However, that's totally different than granting similar rights and subsidies to acres of cash-crops and chemical-refineries!

studentrob 11y ago
I assume it is more complex than appears on the surface. Which crops and processes deserve access to cheaper water? How much water will that save? How much will the price of goods go up as a result? What customers will stop buying as a result? How will farmers react? Should the government try not to bite the hand that feeds its people? I haven't read any farm bills or anything about water data but that's what I would do first if I wanted to understand more.
- Terr_ 11y ago
  > Which crops and processes deserve access to cheaper water? If you're the one trying to champion "water as a human right", then I think it's only fair to ask you where you would draw the lines. What demarcates personal use and commercial use? How many gallons can someone use for their outdoor "washing" pool before you step in and say that they're abusing the system? > How much will the price of goods go up as a result? I don't know, but we have a distributed algorithm for solving it called "capitalism". Like any algorithm, garbage-in makes for garbage-out, and tuning it is a major pain the ass. One of the important inputs is whatever cost on shared-resources (or externalities) imposed by the government.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    Yeah, I do not disagree. I think water regulation should be an open topic. Share data and hold public forums so more parties can work towards a reasonable system that is fair to both businesses and people.

bradleyjg 11y ago

The entities getting (implicitly) subsidized are giant agribusinesses, not poor people. In fact, in the article it says that the residents of San Diego are going to see $5-$7 a month increases for the next 30 years to pay for this desalination plant. Having an annual statewide wholesale auction for water rights would decrease the cost to urban end users, not increase them. But some people are so reflexively opposed to market based solutions that they attack them even when the net result is improvement for the very people they claim to care about.

studentrob 11y ago
By saying people are reflexively against market solutions you're assuming they have not put any thought into this. I don't think it is that simple.