Sinking Rivers, Dams, and Future Environmental Disasters

One more reason dams are not the solution to energy needs:

Most of the world's major river deltas are sinking, increasing the flood risk faced by hundreds of millions of people, scientists report.

Damming and diverting rivers means that much less sediment now reaches many delta areas, while extraction of gas and groundwater also lowers the land.

Rivers affected include the Colorado, Nile, Pearl, Rhone and Yangtze.

Others include the Rio Sao Francisco in Brazil, and the Colorado river. The former is no major surprise; Brazil continues to look to dams (and nuclear energy) as its energy source for the forseeable future, rather than turning to better environmental energy sources like solar and wind power. As for the Colorado, it's particularly problematic for Mexico, because while the delta of the Colorado runs off in Mexico, the U.S. dams and diverts much of the water for its own sources. It would be nice if the U.S. and Mexico could come to some sort of agreement that would witness more equitable water management, but that just won't happen; Mexico doesn't have the international presence of say a Brazil or a China, and there's so little of the river that runs through Mexico that the U.S. probably feels it has the right to all that water; what happens to Mexicans who live near the delta and who will be most impacted by the sinking river basin is of little importance to us. It's harsh, and it's ugly, but that's just how the U.S. thinks and has thought for years when it comes to shared water resources with our southern neighbor, and I don't see it improving any time soon.

Free Market Water is a Crime

This article about the death of a Chilean community from polluted water and drought is another example of the morally bankrupt idea that water should be bought and sold on the free market. This idea, implemented in Chile under the Chicago school economists under Pinochet, has led to communities losing their water and wealthy corporations, particularly mining companies, getting water. Free market water threatens to cause huge problems in the U.S. West in coming years, as the likelihood of increasing drought and the incredibly complex system of water rights in this country will lead to massive litigation, headaches, and thirst for communities throughout the region. This idea reached its apotheosis in the late 1990s when the Bolivian government, under pressure from the IMF, granted Bechtel the water rights to the city of Cochabamba. Bechtel then raised rates to first world levels, leading to gigantic protests that helped send Evo Morales to power.

Now, one might question whether people should live in the Atacama Desert in the first place. But that's for another day. What matters here is that in a world where clean water is increasingly scarce, free market true believers have set up systems that allow people to thirst so that multinational corporations and corrupt governments can rake in the cash.

Of course, the Codelco, the world's largest copper mining corporation and the polluter of the town's water, denies any responsibility. Very believable.

Water Economics and Conservation

It's not often that I get a request to blog on something, but Rob wanted me to talk about this debate on water and economics. As you all know, I really can't resist a bearded man. So here we go.

The economist David Zetland argues that we need to let market forces decide water rates. Only then will conservation happen.

If we had a reasonable price on water, we could have a sustainable water supply everywhere, forever.

People will have 100% reliability IF they are willing to pay. If businesses want reliable water, they pay. If poor people want to use water for more than drinking and sanitation, they pay. If a guy wants to irrigate his golf course, he pays A LOT.

The food supply would shift to higher value crops (less alfalfa and more broccoli). Food prices would go up, but they would reflect the true cost of growing food, not the subsidized cost from unsustainable practices.

Zetland's argument repeats the same problems I have often have with economists--it assums that all people are the same with the same power to buy and sell their goods and labor. I agree that we waste a lot of water and the low prices of that water is a major reason. But what about the poor? Should they have to pay higher rates for water in order to bring usage under control? Should water be treated like any other commodity? I have to answer no. I'm not sure that Zentland disagrees with me so much on this, in that he seems to believe that people should have water for basic uses, but then many of his readers don't have this commitment.

In 2000, the World Bank forced Bolivia to privatize some of its water. The right-wing government of the time sold the rights to Coachabamba's water to the multinational corporation Bechtel. Bechtel decided to charge a supposedly fair market price for the water. But of course, no Bolivian could pay for it. This led to enormous protests in the streets that eventually led to the death of one protestor. Bechtel withdrew after the Bolivian government paid them a large sum in compensation. The backlash to this helped along the rise of Evo Morales.

One major problem with letting market forces decide prices is its amorality. Society must take into account how its practices affects the poor. Another problem of course is that market forces don't actually exist as independent operators. They are constantly manipulated by the wealthy and governments to support big business and the rich. Those who scream the loudest for laissez-faire economics are the first to seek government intervention when the economy doesn't progress in their favor.

Several major progressive bloggers support Zetland's plan, including Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum. To me, this helps demonstrate the disconnect between too many leading left-leaning bloggers and the world's poor, as well as the happy acceptance of economists' constructions of the market without question. A more interesting criticism comes from Froude Reynolds, who questions our background on current water issues. He claims we have all read too much Marc Reisner, who wrote Cadillac Desert. This book condemned how California agriculture has used water throughout its history. Along with Donald Worster's Rivers of Empire, Cadillac Desert brought a lot of attention to one of America's most disturing industries. But Reynolds is right. Cadillac Desert is over 20 years old and a lot of its points aren't necessarily valid today. Agriculture doesn't dominate water in quite the same way as it did 50 years ago.

However, I think Reynolds overstates when he says that the system is "much less outrageous." It is just as outrageous, but in different ways. Agriculture still wastes a tremendous amount of water growing things in places where they should not be grown. Golf courses, housing developments, and theme parks waste gargantuan amounts of water. We allow people in Phoenix to grow orange trees in their yards, we promote pools in Los Angeles, and we love the fountains in Las Vegas. Our society is still based on the profligate use of water and this water is still used primarily by the rich for the rich.

This leads us back to the problem of the market-based solution. Zetland is no doubt right when he says that raising water rates would force people to use less overall water. But the problem is that the golf courses, agribusiness farms, casinos, and wealthy McMansion owners could and probably would still pay those rates. It would be the poor that would suffer. They would not be able to pay for the water they need everyday. The middle class would suffer too. Perhaps they waste money watering their lawns. This should be discouraged. But in a world of rising commodity prices across the board, can we afford to let mysterious market forces raise the water rates of everyone to ensure conservation? I wouldn't support that.

So what can we do? What options make sense? I think the most logical and fair way to adjust water usage is to combine Zetland's ideas with government internvention on behalf of the poor. Water should remain very cheap up to a certian level of usage. Today's poor, both in the United States and around the world, deserve clean water as a right. It is up to governments and international organizations to ensure that right. But after those rights are taken care of, then I think it is quite logical to raise water prices by quite drastic measures. This might not be the so-called laissez-faire market that Zetland and other economists like to talk about. But it does essentiallly the same thing. Through government policy, we can ensure the rights of everyone to supplies of good water while also lowering overall consumption and waste.

The crazy thing about this idea is that it supposes the idea of a government that works for the majority rather than the rich. The unreality of this possibility is perhaps the biggest obstacle from implementing a water plan I could support.

The Water Bill

I agree with Michael Grunwald's points about the water bill which led Congress to override Bush's veto for the first time. Many environmentalists are happy because it provides some money to the Everglades and Louisiana coast. Those are small victories and important in the effort to save those places. However, one can legitimately question the value of dumping huge amounts of money into these places given their almost certain inundation because of rising ocean levels.

But as Grunwald correctly states, "It will preserve America's dysfunctional approach to water resources, the same approach that endangered the Everglades and coastal Louisiana in the first place." The bill leaves agencies like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in charge of water, agencies that have done virtually nothing right in the last 100 years. They have dammed every river they could, sending water across the nation to feed irresponsible growth, and have created immense environmental harm. Funding for these projects has almost nothing to do with what the nation and a whole lot to do with congresspeople bringing projects home to their districts.

Higher principles than earmarks should control our water policy, particularly as we face so many water crises. But with neither political party willing to give up these projects and with interest groups from the Sierra Club to developers getting something in this bill, we can be pretty sure that no reform will come soon.