9377 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. page 2 promises of benefits. As Larry's case studies show, weare not very good at decision making involving the allocation of harms. The resource is perceived by many to be fully utilized. Some feel the resource base is shrinking. Many of those interested in. the outcome of reallocation decisions believe with justification that if they lose out now, there is simply no chance of their making up that loss sometime in the future. Both allocation of harms and perceptions of resource scarcity make for very contentious decision making. 3. The Water Resource As ^ Commons ---- By tradition and in the public interest, water has been treated differently than other resources. Water has been treated as a commons available for free or at a subsidized cost for as long as it lasts. This seemed reasonable at first given the seeming abundance of water and water's cultural significance. Societal organization was premised on this management of the water resource. In Larry's cases the communities reflect this in how they respond to the prospect of losing their water. It is in the individual interest to acquire and use as much of the common resource as possible as fast as possible. If you don't, others will and you lose. This leads to the classic tragedy of the commons so well described by Garret Hardin in his famous essay. The tragedy is the loss of the common resource through. overuse. Hardin's solution was mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon, to manage the resource. 4. Some Limits to Political Resource Management ----Mutual coercion for water resources allocation has generally been through political- legislative-regulatory decision making. There are inherent limitations and failures of markets. There are similar fundamental limitations and faHures inherent i.n' t.he poUt.teal decision making processes. These include limits on knowledge and comprehension; on rational analys\s, and on implementation and also failures in oversight. 5. Megaproblems ---- Dealing with water resource problems appears to involve dealing with "megaproblems". These are nests of large, poorly understood, interconnected problems arising from the interaction of technology, culture, and resource limitations. They involve lots of diverse interests or players. They defy rational, technical, and political solution. Also, the intensity of self-interested competition for the water resources makes finding solutions more difficult and results in unintended and unanticipated consequences adding yet more uncertainty to the context. 6. Summary ---- These contextual features, and a few others, create difficulty in anticipatory recognition and response to the public interest. Reactive recognition is not so difficult when it is in the "public interest" to later clean up a mess. Given these features, I support greater emphasis upon market as opposed to political reallocation of water resources - but with cautions. B . Communi t y Responses 1. Who Participates In The Market ---- At present the non impairment rule for evaluating market transfers is focused upon existing water rights. Many significant, but newer, water users are unable to obtain water rights.