--><font size="2">
<h3><span id="lblStoryTitle"><font face="Verdana" size="1">http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1586</font></span></h3>
<h3><span><font face="Verdana" size="5">Water Down Government</font></span></h3>
<h4 class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">by Benjamin
Marks</font></span></h4>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">[Posed
September 1, 2004]</font></span>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana"><img alt src="http://www.mises.org/images3/water.jpg" align="right" border="0" width="242" height="187">Down
under, in Australia, it is often thought that we are a dry country. What if I
was to tell you that we have more rainfall than the United States! As the
legendary Aussie, agriculture designer, P.A. Yeomans said:"Australia is
not short of water on any comparable per capita basis." However,"the
incidence of rainfall is not very reliable."</font><a id="_ftnref1" title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1586#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><span lang="EN-AU" class="MsoFootnoteReference"><font face="Verdana">[1]</font></span></a></span>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">At
current, Sydney’s water supply is in dire straits. Government has declared
itself the </font><font face="Verdana">monopolist</font><font face="Verdana">
of water. The water storage level is </font><font face="Verdana">45.8%</font><font face="Verdana"> of
capacity. And there is a </font><font face="Verdana">growing
supply and demand imbalance</font><font face="Verdana">. The solution to our
water supply problems is to eliminate government interference. In Australia
considering the erratic incidence of rainfall it is all the more important.</font></span>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">Note:
whether it starts flooding tomorrow and the drought well and truly breaks is not
consequential to this article. In fact, chances are, I’d just be writing one
on the effects of large volumes of rainwater, on our government sabotaged
waterworks and waterways.</font></span>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">In
our analysis of this"supply and demand imbalance," perhaps the most
obvious point is; where on the free market will you find a supply and demand
imbalance? One where fines are enforced for using too much of the resource or
for non-optimum usage or for usage at the wrong time of day? Where at whim the
price of water and conditions of use can be changed, with no contracted
notification? On the free market things are priced so as to clear the market.
Government cannot possibly do this. They claim everyone has a right to water at
below the market price. I wonder if they will still be saying that when they run
out?</font></span>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">Apologists
for government monopoly of water use the usual litany of long refuted arguments.
Here I will address two. (1) That water is something each individual needs therefore
government must provide it. And (2) who, other than government, has the capital
necessary to build the massive dams necessary for water storage?</font></span>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">Point
1 suffers from the fallacies of non sequitur (how is therefore implied?),
conceptual realism (what is government, if not a group of individuals?), and
contradictions galore, i.e., why doesn’t government provide us with food
and clothing? Also, why doesn’t government allow me to steal off others, even
if I claim it is for their own good?</font></span>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">As
for the 2nd point, water tanks on each property would make much much
more economic sense if government did not supply water below cost or have the
monopoly of the water grid. And to add insult to injury, up until a few decades
ago, government banned water tanks. All for the individual’s health, of course!
Now government subsidizes the water tank industry, but this just leads to a
whole other set of problems. For example, it hinders improvements in the water
tank industry, by encouraging marginal production to continue, rather than the
development of superior production lines.</font></span>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">Second,
smaller rather than larger dams, like those built by the government, are
actually less economic, both in storage and in transportation costs. In the
tradition of the Australian Keyline planner, P.A. Yeomans, his son Ken states:</font></span>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">One
reason [for the higher storage costs] appears to be the, far higher cost per
cubic metre (or yard) of earth for the wall of the"big" dam which
is usually over 10 times higher than the cost of the earth placed in the farm
dam. And here the cost of transporting the material is a large factor in this
comparison. Whereas on the farm, a dam site to be used has to have good earth
for wall construction at, and usually within, the dam site. A suitable site
for a"big" dam has no such favourable feature. The materials have
to be much more carefully selected and invariably carried far greater
distances. Concrete walls for these structures are much more costly again.</font><a id="_ftnref2" title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1586#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><span lang="EN-AU" class="MsoFootnoteReference"><font face="Verdana">[2]</font></span></a></span>
[/i]
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">As
implied in this, transportation length will be increased since big dams are more
spread than smaller ones and topographies suitable for big dams are not as easy
to come by. (Not that government could possibly choose the best location anyway).
Leakage of water increases relative to transportation. Percent of leakage in the
Sydney area is around </font><font face="Verdana">10.7%</font><font face="Verdana">,
which is comparable to other areas of Australia and the world. It seems to me
that to lose over 10% of your product is a bucketload!</font></span>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">Also,
inland where the government dams are, there is not as much rainfall compared to
the coast, where most of the people live. We have a situation where, there is
plenty of rain on the coast, yet still restrictions on water usage, as there is
still a drought out west where the government dams are.</font></span>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">Now,
it should be obvious that the"huge amounts of capital necessary," are
not. But for arguments sake lets say they are. Surely if an entrepreneur sees a
potential market for water from big dams (like those of the government) he will
invest capital into the venture. If he can convince others of its ability to
satisfy customers relative to cost (profitability), then he can allow them to
participate in and contribute capital toward the venture as well. The point is:
where does government get its money (other than through counterfeit)?</font></span>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">Lastly,
when we consider the alternatives to the incomprehensibly huge amount of money
the Australian government has spent over the years, it makes you think ..
. Instead of the money the Australian government spends on its"defence"
force, they could of used the money to divert rivers inland.</font><a id="_ftnref3" title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1586#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"><span lang="EN-AU" class="MsoFootnoteReference"><font face="Verdana">[3]</font></span></a><font face="Verdana">
Instead of having a dry and arid inland, Australia would have rainforest. It
would have opened up huge areas of farmland. Just to think of it!</font></span>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">Or,
to further satirize the government and its propensities, instead
of wasting money to create pointless jobs in the Snowy Mountains Scheme, they
could have built the beginnings of a huge (a few thousand kilometres long)
mountain range, which would stop the clouds from just passing over the inland
and hallelujah.</font><a id="_ftnref4" title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1586#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"><span lang="EN-AU" class="MsoFootnoteReference"><font face="Verdana">[4]</font></span></a><font face="Verdana">
And the mountains would be hollow and we could put shopping centres inside and.
..</font></span>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">I do
not know if these seemingly wacky ideas make economic sense, as my
entrepreneurial instincts are a bit immature. All such ideas need to be tested
by market standards. However, if anybody is willing to give me an appropriate
sum of money, I will green the desert. What an investment! Think of all the free
riders!</font></span>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">As
we can see, there is no positive role for government in the supply of water. It
has created a drought where there is none. It could very well threaten the lives
of its subjects if the"drought" escalates. There is no valid reason
for government interference in the water supply.</font></span>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana">The
best solution, in my opinion, is for those with suitable air quality (everyone
in Sydney) and roofing to install water tanks and capture rainwater off their
roofs. It is easy and beneficial to secede from government’s water grid. After
a few years you will save money. It is better for your health (government wont
be able to contaminate your water supply). And, as long as your calculations are
correct, you are much less likely to be affected by drought, than reliance on
government. How about it?</font></span>
<span><font face="Verdana">
<hr align="left" width="33%" SIZE="1">
</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left"><font face="Verdana">Benjamin
Marks</font><font face="Verdana"> is a street sweeper in Sydney, Australia.
Post comments on the </font><font face="Verdana">blog</font><font face="Verdana">.</font></span><br clear="all">
<font face="Verdana">
<hr align="left" width="33%" SIZE="1">
</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><a id="_ftn1" title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1586#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><span lang="EN-AU" class="MsoFootnoteReference"><font face="Verdana">[1]</font></span></a><font face="Verdana">
<span lang="EN-AU">P.A. Yeomans, Ken Yeomans ed. Water for Every Farm. (Southport,
QLD, Australia: Keyline Designs, 2002)
pg 141. Some of his works are available free online: The
Keyline Plan, The
Challenge of Landscape and The
City Forest.</span></font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><a id="_ftn2" title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1586#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2"><span lang="EN-AU" class="MsoFootnoteReference"><font face="Verdana">[2]</font></span></a><font face="Verdana"><span lang="EN-AU"> Ken
Yeomans ed. In P.A. Yeomans, Water for Every Farm. (Southport, QLD,
Australia: Keyline Designs, 2002)
p. 99.</span></font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><a id="_ftn3" title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1586#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3"><span lang="EN-AU" class="MsoFootnoteReference"><font face="Verdana">[3]</font></span></a><font face="Verdana"><span lang="EN-AU"> Ion
L. Idriess, The Great Boomerang. Reprinted in Peace Plans 1444 (Berrima,
NSW, Australia: Libertarian
Microfiche Publishing [1945]).</span></font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><a id="_ftn4" title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1586#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4"><span lang="EN-AU" class="MsoFootnoteReference"><font face="Verdana">[4]</font></span></a><span lang="EN-AU"><font face="Verdana"> out
of print - L.J. Hogan, Man Made Mountain. (Sydney: Charter Books,
1979).</font>
</span></font>
|