Western water policies going back to 1922 are making it difficult or impossible to deal with drought in California, Arizona, and Nevada, says Shawn Regan, writing in National Review (behind a paywall). Regan is vice president of research at PERC (the Property and Environment Research Center). To begin with, says Regan, the Colorado River Compact…
Search Results for: water
Raising Water Prices in California Will Not Just Cut Demand. It Will Supply More Water!
California’s extreme drought will force rationing of water or higher prices, say John McKenzie and Richard McKenzie. Raising water prices has a great advantage: “Higher water prices can increase the state’s available water supply—without additional rainfall or the construction of desalination plants. California is annually losing a massive amount of accessed water in its distribution systems…
PERC Files Supreme Court Amicus Brief, Seeks Clarity on Definition of U.S. Waters
“Fifty years after the enactment of the Clean Water Act, its reach is clear as mud,” writes Jonathan Wood, introducing an amicus brief for a Supreme Court case. The Court has agreed to hear a case claiming that the federal interpretation of the “waters of the United States” (known to environmental specialists as WOTUS) is…
To the New York Times: No, Bottled Water Is Not Sucking Florida Dry
Florida has a water problem that is revealing something very self-destructive about environmental groups and science journalism. Case in point, the September 15 New York Times article by Michael Sainato and Chelsea Skojec headlined, “Bottled Water Is Sucking Florida Dry.”
The water bottler, of course, is the Swiss multi-national company Nestlé. The opinion piece jumps on the bandwagon whose riders have for decades ballyhooed Nestlé as the archetypal evil corporation. Says the article’s subtitle: “The state’s aquifers are shrinking, yet corporations want to appropriate even more of them.”
The Times’ writers egregiously omit the most important facts while larding the piece with innuendo and misleading or untrue but self-serving statements. Example: “The state and local governments have continued to issue water bottling extraction permits that prevent the aquifer from recharging.” Is it quibbling to note that the aquifers do recharge, but apparently not 100 percent? More seriously, it’s simply false to say the bottling of water prevents the full recharge since bottled water is about 1 percent or less of total extraction.
What Went Wrong with the Obama-Era “Waters” Rule?
In his new PERC policy paper, R. David Simpson reports on his experience reviewing the cost-benefit analysis of an Obama-era regulation defining “WOTUS.” (In Washington lingo, that is “waters of the United States.”) Simpson, an economist formerly with the Environmental Protection Agency, expresses regret that he did not press harder to improve the EPA’s cost-benefit analysis of the rule, issued in 2015. The rule was designed to extend the federal government’s jurisdiction over U.S. waters under the Clean Water Act, bringing relatively isolated streams and wetlands under government regulation.
Was Environmental Policy Worth It?
Economist Timothy Taylor reports on a study of the past 50 years of environmental policies. The news is generally upbeat. “Have the reductions in pollution been worth it? he asks. “Economists have sought to itemize and monetize the costs and benefits of environmental rules. The studies can be controversial, as one might expect.” (It’s hard…