- California resists idea of charging market-clearing rate for water — too much like economics — and instead encourages tattling on neighbors [New York Times, Coyote]
- Academia smitten by notion of “climate reparations” [Peter Wood, Minding the Campus]
- Costly market intervention: “Minnesota doubles down on nation’s top biodiesel law” [Watchdog]
- Reusable grocery bags have their problems for sanitation and otherwise, but California contemplates banning the alternatives [Katherine Mangu-Ward, Steven Greenhut, Reason]
- Coming: film about Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain case [Nick Gillespie, Ilya Somin]
- 45 years later: the famous 1969 fire on the Cuyahoga became a fable for its age [Jonathan Adler on the Cuyahoga]
- Should beachfront owners have to open their land to all comers? [NY Times “Room for Debate”]
-
Plus: “EPA has no business garnishing wages without due process” [Examiner editorial, earlier]
Filed under: California, climate change, eminent domain, environment, recycling, reparations
2 Comments
I had the impression that federal funds for water projects (such as California’s dams and aqueduct system) have always carried conditions such as “farmers will always get their water at sweetheart rates.” And since they’re paying around 1% of the residential price, it stands to reason that the market-clearing price would be below the present residential price.
Such a rate change would certainly be beneficial, not least because it would move some agriculture from California to the plains or midwest states, where water is more plentiful. But California’s elite doesn’t want that to happen, and doesn’t want to build additional dams to supply the current population either.
The people need to demand they allow one change or the other. Until then, every year will be a so-called drought year in California.
If Academics like the idea of climate reparations, what reparations do they plan to offer for all that hot air they produce?
Bob