Just an Observation

In a market driven economy, those who buy products and services in bulk usually do so at a discount. Think about your last trip to a warehouse store. Buy more, and pay less on a per unit basis. Or, think about the last membership offer you received. Your discount was higher for a three year commitment than it was for a month to month commitment.

Keeping all of that in mind, read how different the situation is if the "product" comes from a government entity (subscription) as described in this article by Sean Olson:

The city-county water board tonight could close a loophole that lets some high water users escape penalties for hogging water in the summer months.

The board will take up an amendment that would affect the top 1 percent of residential water users in Albuquerque, who officials say account for 5 percent of total residential water use.

It would impose higher penalties on about 1,500 residential users who use large amounts of water in the winter months, defined by the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority as December through March, water authority executive director Mark Sanchez said Tuesday.

For example, the No. 1 residential water user had a $2,989 water bill in 2007. Under the proposed change, it would be $4,811. The 2007 bill that included sewer services was $4,335, and that would increase to $6,157.

The proposed amendment would charge $1.41 extra per unit of water to customers using more than 84 units per month in the summer, Sanchez said. Another $1.41 would be added for every unit above 112.

Why the difference? Simple. This is a classic example of how government run services work. 99% of the users have absolutely no idea what the real cost of water is. They comprise 95% of the water usage. Yet, since they are not responsible to pay real costs, they have no motivation to reduce unnecessary water consumption. Instead, the 1% that use only 5% of the water will be taxed. Will the tax make a difference? Probably not. Since these users either need the water, or find the higher water rate cheaper than fixing the leak that might be causing it.

For a moment think about all of this in terms of the recent spike and decline in gas prices. Everyone felt the pinch, and all of sudden people were driving slower and coming up with solutions to minimize their consumption. Everyone was equally hit. People who operate fleets of vehicles were not charged a premium, nor were those who operate less fuel efficient vehicles. This is a much better approach. Sure there has been public outcry about higher gas prices, but conservation is much more likely in this scenario.

Now, think about all of this in terms of universal public health care, and you'll understand why it is such BAD IDEA.

Your Property Just Lost Value

If you own a piece of land and have failed to drill a well for water before now, you might be up a creek without any water (subscription):

A state court this week threw out New Mexicans' longstanding legal right to drill a domestic water well without having to worry about whether it would leave less water for their neighbors.

The ruling is a victory for activists who say that uncontrolled domestic well drilling poses a long-term threat to New Mexico's ability to manage its dwindling water supples. But the details of how the ruling will affect developers who rely on domestic wells to supply the homes they build is unclear, experts said Friday.

The automatic right to a domestic well, Judge J.C. Robinson of the Sixth Judicial District Court in Silver City concluded, conflicts with the historic Western principle, written into the New Mexico constitution, that the first users of water in a region have the highest priority water rights.

What is bizarre about this case is that it is the result of a lawsuit brought against the State Engineers office. Why is that bizarre? Well, the defendant in this case, the State Engineer, was probably thrilled to lose the case:

Gov. Bill Richardson and the state's top water boss will use their administrative powers to limit new domestic wells after the failure of legislation to accomplish the same goal.

"We will do something," said Bill Hume, Richardson's senior policy adviser. "The governor's serious. The question's not if but how."

Something is fishy here. The State Engineer has successfully lost a case that now requires them to limit new domestic wells - something they've been trying to do for years.

Market Prevails - Again

Less than a year ago, Mayor David Coss in Santa Fe was launching his crusade against bottle water. I thought with everything that a Mayor should be concerned about, his priorities were a little skewed.

I hate to sound like a broken record here, but if people would let the market run its course, they would find a lot of these environmental concerns will fix themselves. And, the decline of the bottled water phenomenon is just the latest example (subscription):

Tap water is making a comeback.

With a day's worth of bottled water— the recommended 64 ounces— costing hundreds to thousands of dollars a year depending on the brand, more people are opting to slurp water that comes straight from the sink.

The lousy economy may be accomplishing what environmentalists have been trying to do for years— wean people off the disposable plastic bottles of water that were sold as stylish, portable, healthier and safer than water from the tap.

The next step to water conservation is not more costly low flow toilet mandates or rebates from municipalities (with a rebate I'm funding my neighbors flushing habits). It is not the creation of Water Authority Utility fees. Nor, is it the seizure of private companies by government bureaucracies. Conservation will occur if we just let the market dictate the price and economic pressures motivate personal priorities.

We're not just talking about water here. The market can fix suburban sprawl issues, fossil fuel consumption, escalating health care and just about any of the other multitude of government caused problems that now plagues us, but we have to let it work.

Lie, Cheat, Steal - Whatever Works

The Albuquerque Journal has an interesting piece today on New Mexico State Engineer, John D'Antonio (subscription):

When New Mexico's top water official argued in April for a billion-dollar water project to benefit Navajos who have no running water, he cited a public television documentary in support of his argument.

"The reality faced by many Navajo families today and the benefits of the settlement agreement were highlighted in a recent PBS documentary, 'The Water Haulers,' and many New Mexicans were shocked to realize the primitive conditions some of their neighbors are faced with," state engineer John D'Antonio wrote in an April 8 opinion piece published in the Albuquerque Journal.

What D'Antonio didn't say was that his agency helped pay for the documentary.

Ouch! If this was done by corporate America instead of a Richardson appointee, people would be screaming for someone's head to be served on a platter. I mean is anyone actually buying the story D'Antonio's is selling:

D'Antonio said it never occurred to him he should identify his agency's role in the documentary's production when he cited it in his April 8 opinion piece.

"Quite frankly, it didn't even cross my mind," he said in an interview.

D'Antonio said he thought of the documentary as "an educational piece."

"It wasn't a piece of propaganda," he said.

Yeah, like heck it wasn't. The State Engineer's office pays half of the production cost and then uses it to make the case to provide a billion dollar project to the group the financed the other half of the project.

Now, I admit it. I'm not a big fan of Mr. D'Antonio - going back to the days when he decided he could unilaterally create his own "laws" to seize our water rights. But, I guess this just serves to confirm that in the Bill Richardson Administration, anything goes.