Buying Water Rights for Environmental Reasons
The AP via News8Austin: Judge says groups can buy water rights for preservation
An Austin judge ruled environmental groups seeking to purchase water rights for conservation purposes deserve the same consideration as cities and businesses buying water for consumption.Environmental groups filed suit in 2003 claiming the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality had not fairly considered applications for water rights for environmental purposes.
Copyright ©2006TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
Should people be free to buy natural resources, even if they intend on using their ownership to restrict what they view as wasteful or harmful use? If the transaction is voluntary and the current owner is the legitimate owner, then I would have no fundamental objection. I'm not against fanatical tree-huggers pooling their cash together and buying a forest or a lake and forbidding me or a chemical plant from utilizing the resources within.
But consider this:
If you plan to use water from rivers, streams, underflow, creeks, tides, lakes or bay areas, it is considered state water and you might be subject to the TCEQ water right permitting process.
By virtue of being the government, the State of Texas has laid claim to most waterways, monopolizing the seller's market in openly available surface water. People who previously used the water were locked out by state fiat. As such, any transactions with it to buy the rights to some body of water cannot truly be described as voluntary. Rather, we are compelled to go to the state to acquire this stuff.
The question of what to do here, today is complicated. You could take the Misean route and declare this ruling the creation of a loophole in the regulatory framework, thereby constituting an increase in the degree of freedom permitted by the state. I lean towards this view. However, it would be myopic to ignore the inevitable incentives that are created, warped, and repressed by the current scheme that arise as a result of this fraudulent state ownership.
Comments
Drizzy, this is where we split in opinion. Just because you own the land the stream runs through does not mean you can do whatever you like to the land. Environmental runoff to streams and underground water systems affects the entire ecosystem around your property. If I strip mine my land without taking precautions to prevent soil erosion you could create a dangerous mudslide or duststorm, harming others and damaging property - not directly my fault but indirectly caused through environmental negligence. What about endangered species? Do you not believe in preservation of an animal that has been forced out of it's natural environment by landowners? When you bought your house, did you consider what animals were displaced when the original settlers claimed the land? Who then was the rightful "owner" of the land - was it not taken by force?
In Drizzlandia, you might advocate a social contract by which property owners would guarantee no damage to other property by environmental negligence, but what are the punishments? Monitary fines? Sometimes, once the damage is done no amount of science or monitary investment can restore it.
You open a water bottling plant on your property off the river. You pull all the water you want out of the river, clean it up, and distribute it at a nice profit to whoever is willing to pay. Meanwhile, thousands downstream go on water rationing because the local streams are dry. Businesses go under because tourism is down, due to no water. Do they deserve recourse in Drizzlandia?
Someone has to inspect motor vehicles, because it's dangerous to everyone if they are releasing too many toxins into the air. It's not like the bar issue, where you can just choose to do business elsewhere due to the smoke. Everyone suffers.
Also, this data is regarding surface water. Aquifer rights in Texas are very similar to oil rights - you own the right to all the water under your property, and can do with it what you wish. Look up the San Antonio catfish farm story from a few years back. Now there's a case of the government stepping in after they have laws in place and claiming more false ownership and more rights.
Posted by: TheFlamingoKing | February 9, 2006 12:08 AM
Timmah, there are very few instances where I will unequivocally state that an individual "can do whatever [they] like" with their property. I am not a hedonist; I am not someone who calls for total freedom to do whatever they want with whatever they've got.
My system is not without rules. For example, I don't consider Drizzten's Mega Murder Emporium ("50% off if you bring your own innocent victim!!!") to be a legitimate usage of my house. If fertilizer I use on my 500 acre hemp field is partially washed away by rain and pollutes another person's property, that person is justified in seeking the cessation of my action and/or restitution.
No, I don't care whether or not, for instance, the Barton Springs salamander survives. It does not have a property right to its habitat and neither did the squirrels, ants, deer, spiders, or birds that lived on the plot of land that I currently have before it was cleared and built upon.
If a community wanted to require you to sign an environmental impact agreement before moving in that specified the procedures, remedies, and defenses in the event of an environmental complaint, that's fine. Not all responses to contract violations and criminal acts are designed to "restore" the victimized object to prior status. You can't "fix" a rape victim by jailing, castrating, or fining the rapist.
Gushing Drizz Water Company decides to bottle H2O from a river. This occurs in one of several contexts:
1. GDWC is the first on the scene and no humans within significant impact are using the water.
2. GDWC is not the first on the scene and there are humans downstream using the water.
3. GDWC arrives at the same time as other would-be river utilizers.
I'll assume you are referring to #2. In this case I don't have a clear answer for you. There is a limit to how far back one can trace a chain of responsibility, and this applies to internal combustion engine exhaust as well. Can you prove that *my* fumes caused *his* lung cancer?
Posted by: Drizz | February 9, 2006 04:55 PM