Comments due by April 10, 2015
This would do more than any set of regulations ever could. For example, the governor is not going to force people to replace their old toilets with newer, more water-efficient ones. But a higher price of water would encourage people to do that. A higher price would also give farmers the right incentive to grow the most water-efficient crops. It would induce entrepreneurs to come up with new water-saving technologies. And so on.
Some may worry about the distributional effects of a higher price of a necessity. But the revenue from a higher price could be rebated to consumers on a lump-sum basis, making the whole system progressive. We would end up with more efficiency and more equality. ( Greg Mankiw)
It is true that California can control the water use efficiently by increasing the price of water because people do not become responsible in water usage if the restriction is not brought. There is need for proper limitation to prevent the irresponsible water usage. It will be true to add that people learn to be more responsible if the water price is increased. It should be noted that people need to think about the future of the country and they should decrease the unnecessary water usage. The government should prepare a program to train people in that issue. This is an important and serious problem for California and more responsible act of people is needed in that case. The increase in water price would be helpful because people will not be able to afford water price and they will have to use less.
ReplyDeleteSamet, I agree with your statement that Government must place restrictions, but I don't believe that the paying more for water will solve the problem. Please read my blog below as to why I disagree. Thanks, Lourdes
DeleteLooking through California's new inputs and regulations its going to be a regulation to make a true difference. Price increment will create a view of water usage as a need to be more responsible. As Samet Aycan said in his comment, people do not become responsible in water usage if they do not put a restriction for it. In one way this will force people to have new technologies for saving water, as well as entrepreneurs will began to work in products to make the system me overtime better. This restrictions should be, step by step, working in every different state, or even in every country. This method will increase the improvement of the environment and will slow down a little all the problems of water waste. As new technologies will be created, people also should be inducted to use this. In simple words, people should be educated of water usage, the new restrictions and its new technologies in the future.
ReplyDeleteThe California drought raises the question on water restriction and/or water price levels. These are two ways in which to deal with the drought, if the California State government takes examples from other countries or states of how they dealt with the same issue, they will determine the best option. For example; Australia implemented water restrictions in certain states and areas to help control the scarcity and stop people from unnecessarily wasting water. Those who were caught not following water restriction rules were fined.
ReplyDeleteIf California decides to raise water prices, it may not have as strong of an affect as they hope, and the California communities may protest such a change. The other issue will also come about of people wanting to leave for a wetter state where they don't have to worry about such issues. Will California be able to keep there entertainment glamour and continue the traffic of tourism if they implement such water restrictions and/or surge pricing.
The drought in California has brought attention to the issue of the overuse of water. In the eyes of an economist, the obvious solution to this issue would be to increase the prices of water in order to put a restriction on the use of water. The results of this restriction would give entreprenuers the incentive to create technologies that would contribute to the cause of a green economy. "Greener" technologies would stimulate revenue, while helping the water issue in California.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this water restriction is very efficient, those living in California may not be pleased with the rising cost of water.
I definitely agree with raising the price of water. Initial reactions for doing this may be positive because what “good” can come out of raising the price of anything? However, Greg Mankiw makes a very good point that if the price of water is not raised people would have any motivation to save water or use more water efficient technology. Even though the positive effects of this may not occur immediately, implementing this may have positive long-term effects. If the revenue from the higher price is actually rebated to consumers on a lump-sum basis, them it would be a good implementation because this will make the system more progressive and efficient.
ReplyDeleteThe water scarcity is becoming a really big issue for California right now. Sadly, many still seem to view the resources as cheap and plentiful despite the state’s drought. The state and local governments can change that perception if they raise the price of water.
ReplyDeleteCheap water is making it harder for officials to discourage the overconsumption in California’s drought. Even if the state went as far as turning excessive water use into a crime, California’s very own water officials would probably be the first ones guilty of taking too much. One would think that the water-scare parts of the country would have to pay higher rates. Sadly, that wouldn’t be the case. Water-use rates have a very small correlation between the geographic region, and even smaller connection to the drought.
One of the reasons that it is more expensive in certain areas is because some of the older cities had to upgrade their infrastructure as part of the Clean Water Act, and that cost was then passed on to the consumer. There are definitely ways to raise rates without hurting the wallets of low-income Americans. The implication of rising fee schemes might work such as starting low for a basic allotment covering the families’ essential needs and then rising quickly with volume to make people really think twice about using water for unnecessary things such as a swimming pool. Some people still feel that public consumption isn’t the worst offender of the California water crisis; many have blamed it on the agriculture industry. In the end, I feel that this issue needs to be carefully looked at, only because this can end up affecting the whole country as a whole, not just California.
Raising the price of water, the measure can really achieve the goal of saving water in a certain range, due to the raising price, people can consciously tell themselves to save water, as the above text recommended, Raising the price of water price will give farmers the right incentive to grow the most water-efficient crops，and induce entrepreneurs to come up with new water-saving technologies，etc. At the same time, people can win more efficiency and more equality. In the daily life, raising the price of water, which can cultivate people’s consciousness of saving water, and find reasonable ways to sustainable utilization of the water resources, adopting the way of price control to achieve the goal of saving water. However, in my opinion, California had encountered a severe drought, a high water price cannot fully control water consumption, cannot drastically solve the problem at all. The rich people will not reduce water consumption, they are not cared much about the water price. In this emergency situation, it is possible to restrict water consumption, limit placing on the amount of water people could use, but it must satisfy people's basic living water, control each person’s water consumption, make use of the existing fresh water in a proper way. People who excessively waste water should be taken to fines or other penalties.
ReplyDeletePrivatizing water is an OK solution to the California drought, but I do have my concerns. Essentially, people arguing for an increase price in water put blame for the drought on a runaway 'tragedy of the commons' effect. I think that raising the price for water put an unnecessary burden on the domestic consumption of water - water that is not used for commercial or industrial uses. Their should be an increase price only at the upper echelons of industry, who uses the vast majority of the water. This will incentivize entrepreneurship within the industry and promote all of the benefits highlighted within the article. Again, if the vast majority of water consumption is not within the household, raising the base price of water will effect the consumer much more then it would effect industry. If the industrial use of water is not targeted, then much of these 'incentives' will not exist. I firmly believe that water should remain a common resource; with careful regulation and taxation on the largest uses, Californians - both commercial and domestic users - can compromise and make effective policy.
ReplyDeleteRaising the price of water could definitely have a positive impact on the unfortunate drought occurring in California. Looking at various industries and groups consuming water, from large companies to average citizens, the consumption is very different, and thus some people will protest that price raising should be adjusted to this variance in consumption.
ReplyDeleteI believe that price raising will encourage entrepreneurship and new startups. Water is not a big industry for new startups, but needs to be.
The drought in California is only getting worse so I do believe that something needs to change. I have mixed feelings about making people pay more for water. On one hand, I know that if I was paying more for water I would conserve it as much as possible. But on the other hand, I don't think it is fair to make people pay extra for a living necessity. I would impliment new laws requiring eco friendly, water conserving appliances and electronics in new constructions and all commercial buildings. That would put less of the burden on the people who are more money strapped. I think by adding government regulations or laws would help before you raise the price of water. Depending on how much you raise it, some people will move out California or they will have to buy new water efficient appliances. It is hard to force people to purchase new appliances but like Greg Mankiw mentions, it would push people in the more eco friendly direction.
ReplyDeleteI can remember hearing about California's occasional droughts and where some parts of California experience absolutely no rainfall at all. However, I could never imagine a drought this bad in California that the governor is implementing a mandatory plan to curb water use. Water supply agencies are being asked to deliver 25% less water over the next year. In California, agriculture takes up about 80% of the states water according to The Economist. Urban water use has been steady over the past two decades, even with the population growth. This is because of the smart pricing and low-flow toilets. Now economists are starting to impose a solution that would help reduce the use of water, which is to simply raise the price of it. Raising the price of water would urge homeowners to replace their old toilets with the low-flow toilets and force farmers to grow water efficient crops unlike crops such as almonds, walnuts and grapes. People take water for granted and believe that there is an unlimited supply. Clearly, this is not the case and people, especially those in California need to become aware of different ways to conserve water and be smart about their water usage. Increasing the price of water would make people less likely to overuse it and as mentioned in the article, start introducing water saving products such as the low-flow toilets into their homes and businesses.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I don't want to pay more money for water, I think it is a great idea and may be the change needed to get people to be more aware of their overuse. I know that in my house, it drives me nuts when the water bill comes and I see that my kids long showers and just running of water ran up my bill, and that is without being more expensive. Raising the prices on anything will make you more resourceful. This is similar to gas. When gas prices were higher, people drove less, filled up their tanks less, found other ways to commute, carpooled etc. I think this is a wise plan and hope that it works.
ReplyDeleteFrom an economic point of view, one can say that the law of supply and demand applies to the drought conditions in California, and the cost of water should be increased to “create more efficiency and more equality”. However, contrary to the article entitled, “A Meter So Expensive, It Creates Parking Spots” by Michael Cooper and Jo Craven McGinty, which created additional parking spaces due to the higher parking costs, increasing the price of water, will not fill the empty reservoirs. The drought also contributes to an additional dilemma. The reduction of the river flow causes the hydropower stations to reduce the electrical energy which powers the cities. As a result, natural gas is then utilized to pump hydroelectricity and this process is extremely expensive. Therefore, the cost of natural gas will also be increased. This means a double increase for Californian residents and businesses. Having to pay more for water and gas can certainly cripple residential communities, businesses and the economy as a whole. Government must issue regulations wherein homes, small business, industries and manufacturers be forced to utilize energy efficient appliances and machinery. Also, utilization of solar energy and wind can contribute to the conservation of both water and energy, even if it starts on a small scale. I, therefore, disagree that the price of water should be increased in California. Californian residents must implement significant changes in their own daily usage to conserve water, but paying more is not the answer as water is a necessity and not a luxury like a parking space.
ReplyDeleteThe drought has been going on for sometime, because of temperature change. As global warming continues to rise so will the destruction of our earth. California is suffering tremendously from the loss of rainfall. The drought has caused serious turmoil in the state restricting its residents. Farmer’s need to innovate ways to save water and still increase production. Now engineers and famers can find ways to use technology to use and preserve water at the same time. 60 % of energy that is being use is being wasted. We need to cut down on waste, but this can also be tricky.
ReplyDeleteI am originally from San Francisco and I have seen the parking meter goes up tremendously. A couple of years ago a law was past to keep the meters running on Sundays. For each district the price of meters varies depending traffic. Since it is almost impossible to find parking in the city people decide to bike or use the great transportation system. There is Bart that transports people through our all of the Bay Area, local buses, and surface trollies. Most of the buses and trollies run electrically bring down the C02 levels in the city. The cost of fee of parking is actually a benefit our environment because there are more open spots for parking and less carbon is being released in the air.
The drought has been going on for sometime, because of temperature change. As global warming continues to rise so will the destruction of our earth. California is suffering tremendously from the loss of rainfall. The drought has caused serious turmoil in the state restricting its residents. Farmer’s need to innovate ways to save water and still increase production. Now engineers and famers can find ways to use technology to use and preserve water at the same time. 60 % of energy that is being use is being wasted. We need to cut down on waste, but this can also be tricky.
ReplyDeleteI am originally from San Francisco and I have seen the parking meter goes up tremendously. A couple of years ago a law was past to keep the meters running on Sundays. For each district the price of meters varies depending traffic. Since it is almost impossible to find parking in the city people decide to bike or use the great transportation system. There is Bart that transports people through our all of the Bay Area, local buses, and surface trollies. Most of the buses and trollies run electrically bring down the C02 levels in the city. The cost of fee of parking is actually a benefit our environment because there are more open spots for parking and less carbon is being released in the air.
I do not believe raising the price of water is a step in the right direction. Water should be the only scarce resource that should be free, I do however think that if water is regulated in California this would have the same effect as raising the price of water. First and foremost it will make people aware of the fact that the dessert is running dry creating a sense of due diligence and urgency. there are 800 million people in the world that go waterless everyday, raising the price of water in California seems cruel and unethical when you weight it against that factor.
ReplyDeleteBy:Yeison Gomezzarzuela
Simple policies could be Agricultural crops consume a huge amount of water. The fight against waste starts with good efficiency of water use in agricultural practices. Choosing greedy little water and species of Mediterranean origin is a first step (but no culture in the Mediterranean region for example). Domestic water use must be reasoned way. The fight against waste takes many forms: systematic leaks in pipes, watering in the cool of the day to avoid immediate evaporation of water, using water consumption devices (and energy) Car wash should be only limited when it is necessary and in specialized centers. In the industry, we should look for leaks in water piping systems, and maximize recycling of water. We should also use plants that are not water-intensive.
ReplyDelete