Is water a a public good or a commodity?

[coldwynn]

Originally Posted by Greatday

I "get" my own water. Through my own well. And, my property came with water rights. There are millions of other properties across our nation in similar situations.

Is anyone suggesting that I, or millions of others, be forced to allow others rights to use my water?

What do you think of Case II or Case III that I posted above?

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by coldwynn

What do you think of Case II or Case III that I posted above?

Do I take into consideration existing water rights laws and existing case law?

[my54ford]

North and South parts of the PRK have been fighting over water for years. If the North ever won the LA basin would revert to sand

[slaleman]

Originally Posted by coldwynn

Case I: A corporation provides the infrastructure to deliver water to a group of people. By economic principles, the corporation should be able to charge for that delivery and that infrastructure (it would be like coca cola selling bottled water). But, let's say that the corporation -which has a monopoly on the infrastructure- determines that water can be safely charged at $4/gallon (like gasoline) and still maximize a profit for the company . . . the question then is, what happens to people who cannot afford water at $4/gallon?

I think this case may be the hardest of the four you presented, but my knee jerk reaction is this: First, water companies are usually public utilities, at least in cities, and are therefore not out to make a profit. Those people who cannot afford to pay a water bill, as such, probably cannot also afford to own a home and might very well be living in an apartment where, usually, utilities are paid. I know that doesn't answer the question...

Originally Posted by coldwynn

Case II: The lower Mississippi River is fed by three main tributaries but by the time it gets to Memphis it is now one big river all the way down to New Orleans. Does Memphis own their part of the Mississippi? Can they dam it up and dry out everything south of them, reduce the New Orleans delta into a trickle?

As I said, a freely flowing water source ought to be usable by everyone along that source within reason. So no, Memphis would not own their "part" of the river, because the river itself is not part of the city. The city has access to it for water and transportation, but must be considerate of those downstream. In this case, it is most definitely a public good.

Originally Posted by coldwynn

Case III: Canada owns part of the Great Lakes. Suppose they start bottling that water and selling it at profit. Does the United States have a right to intervene on the doings of a sovereign nation?

This is also a case of "public good" where both sides must be considerate of the other. The Great Lakes are vitally important to both sides of the border for water and transportation, but there must be an agreement reached about how much water each side can take, similar to an agreement between the US and Mexico (that's not to say that there haven't been problems with that treaty)

Originally Posted by coldwynn

Case IV: Houses in the US Virgin Islands are all equipped with rain water collectors because the islands do not have a source of ground water. If there should be a drought and a company then is willing to build a pipeline from the mainland to the islands but requires that, as part of the cost of building the pipeline that the rain water collectors should be taxable (so that the company is assured of profit in the future) - is this legal (not a question of morality here, since companies are not bound by morality). And what about the state from which this water will come from? Are they allowed to sell their water for profit?

I think a better agreement would be that the people on the island would pay to build the pipeline themselves, and those who wanted the invest in it paying for its operation and upkeep. Those people could then reap the profits from that water line when it was needed. In reality, it would probably be built with a government subsidy...

[SarahSal]

Important debate to have with many good points made already. I caught the tail end of an NPR discussion about the issue earlier this week and there were examples noted of companies pushing hard to acquire water rights all across this country. IMHO, this seems to be a case where municipalities (run by elected officials) should own and operate all *public* water supplies.

Maybe this is a dire prediction but the early warning signs of potential corporate takeovers of our water resources should be addressed and quickly. As an example, the government waited much too long to deal with our current financial crisis. Can you imagine what would happen if corporate entities controlled this essence of life?