Tonight on KVNU’s For the People…
Hillary Clintons campaign has come to an end. We’ll talk about her speech Saturday and what she accomplished.
Some communities in
Barack Obama and John McCain have been exchanging blows today on the economy. Obama is linking McCain to Bush on the economy.
Strange
All of that, your phone calls and more, tonight on KVNU’s For the People!
For those of you that would argue that water should be treated as any other commodity let me make the following argument. First, we need to understand that the far majority of fresh water in our area begins its life on public lands in the form of rainfall and snow pack. As such, it is arguable that every citizen, as co-owners of this great land are thus deemed co-owners of the water that is produced on public lands. Much like the oil rich state of Alaska who pays its citizens for the sale of its oil, as citizens we each have a right to claim compensation for any public water that might be sold on the open market. If the water is sold on the open market and its owners are not compensated directly, compensating those owners in society by setting aside equal shares to each individual member of the coop should be the next step. Under this system, large households by virtue of the fact that there are more citizen-shareholders in that house hold should receive a larger number of shares or greater compensation. Conversely, a single person household should be reserved less water. Under this model, Ryan’s assertion that as a single person living in his home he would under a per-capta based Block system be subsidizing larger families is incorrect. In fact the opposite is true. Instead under the current system it is arguable that it is the larger family and the fact that each member of that family, even its children who are also citizen owners, are the ones that are subsidizing the single individual’s larger water allocation.
While a pure Free Market system works for most every good and service, using the Free Market to dictate the price and availability of water is a terrible idea because is neglects several factors. Water is necessary to support life. Humans can only survive on average for 3 days without water. It simply serves the greater good for society to maintain its population and provide for their most basic needs; if for no other reason than to discourage revolt or revolution. Additionally, allowing water to be sold on the open market like any other commodity would eventually lead to wealthy investors buying up this necessary resource and in some cases and areas creating a monopolized supply. Once water is bought and sold as an open commodity, it may also be transported and sold at the discretion of the owner to the highest bidder, even one that is overseas. Currently, the far majority of oil produced in Alaska is sold on the open market and shipped to eastern Asia. Because of this, tapping oil supplies on nation lands in Alaska would have little effect on or end oil or gas prices.
Under a commodity based system, it is completely feasible that in areas like Cache Valley, the far majority of our water could end up being piped away to more lucrative markets like Salt Lake City. This would leave us high and dry and would eventually force populations to move towards high density areas, where economic engines are much stronger. Finally, selling water as a commodity would have a devastating affect on food supplies. Only the most financially viable agricultural products, like those used in ethanol would eventually be able to afford this raw material.
Considering all these factors, I will still choose a Block rate system that allows for family size.