Libertarian Solution To Fisheries Issues?

[anaconda]

My girlfriend's college friend works for the U.S. Department of Geological Survey, more specifically with fish research. Turns out that the smelt in the Sacramento Delta are dying off because the local and state governments are sending too much fresh water to the growers of agricultural products in the world famous San Joaquin Valley where enormous quantities of factory farmed output is produced. So the smelt spawn in "brackish" water that is a delicate balance of fresh and salinated water. Since no one "owns" the water in the delta there is no opportunity for a private property dispute. This case is also a metaphor for many other scenarios.

Can any of you libertarian theorists help me out with this? What is the libertarian solution here?

Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving!

[Sentient Void]

Same exact problem with logging in public lands contracted out to private companies. The solution is free market environmentalism - and to auction off public waters to those in the private sector through marketization. Then, as always, enforce private property rights. There's one potential idea.

The state/local government could also 'give' (I say 'give' because the local government has expropriated it as is from the homesteaders, and the state can't justly own anything that it has stolen, but whatever, I digress) the land to whoever has been homesteading it / mixing their labor with it. That'd probably be the best form of libertarian privatization / marketization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism

[cswake]

Happy thanks to you too.

The Nobel Prize committee actually (indirectly) did us a favor in 2009, when they awarded it to Elinor Ostrom for the "Tragedy of the Commons", and specifically how she addressed that people *can* work together on shared land without ruining it (including fisheries):


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Austrians were very pleased:


http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/10/16/elinor-ostrom-austrian-praise-for-the-nobel-laureate-and-a-reprise-of-my-posts-on-her-thoughts-on-how-human-communities-successly-manage-commons.aspx

And the best part? She says this about the "Climate Crisis":

Ostrom cautions against single governmental units at global level to solve the collective action problem of coordinating work against environmental destruction. Partly, this is due to their complexity, and partly to the diversity of actors involved. Her proposal is that of a polycentric approach, where key management decisions should be made as close to the scene of events and the actors involved as possible.

[Knightskye]

Tell her to watch Stossel's show tonight. He's talking about the tragedy of the commons.

[anaconda]

bump.

This is the kind of stuff we need to get a handle on to win over liberals and explain libertarianism as it becomes more high profile with Rand in the Senate.

[legion]

California has a lot bigger water issues than the "smelt."

For instance, California wouldn't have enough fresh water to ruin the smelt's habitat in the free market, because no company would be able to make pumping water from two states away profitable.

California receives 600 million dollars per year in direct federal subsidies for water. Additionally, they get the amortization cost of building the Hoover dam and the hundreds of miles of pipes to bring the water from the Colorado River to Southern California.

In today's dollars the Dam would cost half a billion dollars. But, this was during the Great Depression when labor costs were minuscule, dangerous work conditions were tolerated, and there was no liability issues from the 112 people that died building the dam.

[anaconda]

California has a lot bigger water issues than the "smelt."

For instance, California wouldn't have enough fresh water to ruin the smelt's habitat in the free market, because no company would be able to make pumping water from two states away profitable.

California receives 600 million dollars per year in direct federal subsidies for water. Additionally, they get the amortization cost of building the Hoover dam and the hundreds of miles of pipes to bring the water from the Colorado River to Southern California.

In today's dollars the Dam would cost half a billion dollars. But, this was during the Great Depression when labor costs were minuscule, dangerous work conditions were tolerated, and there was no liability issues from the 112 people that died building the dam.


Would Californians pay more for water and make transporting it profitable?

Also, seems like amortization would hve expired by now, if you're referring to depreciation amortization.

Very interesting post. Thank you.

[anaconda]

Same exact problem with logging in public lands contracted out to private companies. The solution is free market environmentalism - and to auction off public waters to those in the private sector through marketization. Then, as always, enforce private property rights. There's one potential idea.

The state/local government could also 'give' (I say 'give' because the local government has expropriated it as is from the homesteaders, and the state can't justly own anything that it has stolen, but whatever, I digress) the land to whoever has been homesteading it / mixing their labor with it. That'd probably be the best form of libertarian privatization / marketization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism


But what if somebody buys property to exploit the resources and then abandons it? Why would they care about ownership rights or "smelt?"

[legion]

Would Californians pay more for water and make transporting it profitable?

Also, seems like amortization would hve expired by now, if you're referring to depreciation amortization.

Very interesting post. Thank you.

Let me put it this way.

Southern California is a desert.

The only reason anybody is able to grow anything there or live there in the current densities is because they pump the Colorado river dry.

Completely dry.

The Colorado River never makes it to the ocean because they pump all the water out of it.

This would not be possible without direct subsidies from the Federal Government.

By amortization I mean this: it would not be possible for California to pump all the water out of the Colorado without the Hoover dam. This public works project is a huge subsidy to California. They still get the benefit to this day from this massive public works project, which would cost MUCH more to do today, due to regulations.

I would estimate that the final cost Hoover dam would be much as it cost the Chinese to build the Three Gorges Dam, around 30 billion dollars, if you built it to today's standards.

[legion]

But what if somebody buys property to exploit the resources and then abandons it? Why would they care about ownership rights or "smelt?"
Google George Washington Vanderbilt II and Frederick Law Olmsted

[payme_rick]

Her proposal is that of a polycentric approach, where key management decisions should be made as close to the scene of events and the actors involved as possible.

amen and amen...

[legion]

The biggest secret in America. Where does the water in California come from? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-American_Canal) Californians don't know the answer to this because they don't care.

All this so

1. Californians can live in a Donald Bren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Bren) ignorant mindfuck suburban sprawl environment. Did you know the average Californian uses 200 gallons of water a day? In Tennessee we use about 70 gallons a day per person.

2. So farmers can grow ALMONDS and lettuce in the desert that is the Imperial Valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Valley_%28California%29).

Meanwhile, these ASSHOLES have the audacity to get on the soap box about hydroelectric energy costs in the Tennessee Valley, when the TVA receives ZERO DIRECT FEDERAL SUBSIDIES.

[legion]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Salton_Sea_from_Space.jpg

Sometimes a picture is worth 1000 words.

1 billion dollar/year agricultural sales in the middle of a desert. It's sick.

This is where half of the US broccoli, carrots, cauliflower, celery, lettuce, onions, and tomatoes are grown, every year..

[Sentient Void]

But what if somebody buys property to exploit the resources and then abandons it? Why would they care about ownership rights or "smelt?"

It's not in their best interests to do so, and it wouldn't be very profitable to do so. There's no reason to believe any even quasi-intelligent or reasonable businessman or even just a landowner would simply abandon such property. He would probably sell it to someone who sees a use for it, or find a use for it himself - either solution getting him some moneys in return as opposed to nothing whatsoever / abandonment.

Of course, that's not to say it would never happen. I'm sure it would - but it would happen a *lot* less often then it does now under public / government owned areas contracted out to private companies, and such a system would be much more preferable than the current one. I suggest you read the wiki article on free market environmentalism, but here's a solid snippet to get you started that addresses your concern among others...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism#Economics_of_environmental _destruction

[awake]

Yes the model is agriculture but by the name aquaculture. Property strongly tends to be managed and protected... communal ownership always places the costs on unseen others. Instead of environmentalists spending millions lobbing a deadbeat land lord (government), they could own plots of the ocean and protect the whales all they want in a productive manner.

[anaconda]

Yes the model is agriculture but by the name aquaculture. Property strongly tends to be managed and protected... communal ownership always places the costs on unseen others. Instead of environmentalists spending millions lobbing a deadbeat land lord (government), they could own plots of the ocean and protect the whales all they want in a productive manner.

But what if the owner wished to slaughter all the whales and sell them? And possibly trash the environment and predator food chain in the process?

[awake]

But what if the owner wished to slaughter all the whales and sell them? And possibly trash the environment and predator food chain in the process?

He becomes an expert in whale farming, which is the securitization of the species, he wants to keep the species alive , healthy and happy...Think cows. Or, if the market allowed for it, a whale observation business.

[axiomata]

But what if somebody buys property to exploit the resources and then abandons it? Why would they care about ownership rights or "smelt?"

What if a auto manufacturer wanted to buy a high tech factory and work his employees and equipment at months on end at 100%? Use his capital in such a way that his employees quit and his equipment broke.

It is true that such a misuse would have a negative effect short term. It would be a waste of valuable capital and actually result in a diminished amount of wealth (from what would have been possible.) But capitalism works in such a way that poor stewards of capital do not have the privaledge of commanding it for very long.


I also second the Ostrom recommendation.

[dannno]

Ok, so the farms are using too much water, I like to preserve water sheds too, I can dig...

but why can't they import water from somewhere else and either direct it towards the valley or put it right into the watershed that is short water if that is cheaper... and pay higher prices? This doesn't seem to be an option ever discussed.

[Brian4Liberty]

My girlfriend's college friend works for the U.S. Department of Geological Survey, more specifically with fish research. Turns out that the smelt in the Sacramento Delta are dying off because the local and state governments are sending too much fresh water to the growers of agricultural products in the world famous San Joaquin Valley where enormous quantities of factory farmed output is produced. So the smelt spawn in "brackish" water that is a delicate balance of fresh and salinated water. Since no one "owns" the water in the delta there is no opportunity for a private property dispute. This case is also a metaphor for many other scenarios.

Can any of you libertarian theorists help me out with this? What is the libertarian solution here?

Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving!

Screw the smelt. This is one of those limousine leftist "green" issues. Orchards that were decades old were left to die because the water was cut off this year.
Maybe importing millions of water-hungry humans into California each year is the problem.

[legion]

Ok, so the farms are using too much water, I like to preserve water sheds too, I can dig...

but why can't they import water from somewhere else and either direct it towards the valley or put it right into the watershed that is short water if that is cheaper... and pay higher prices? This doesn't seem to be an option ever discussed.

They're already doing that. Where do you think all this excess fresh water is coming from? California is a desert. It never fucking rains there. Where do you think the fresh water comes from?

They pipe water in from Northern California and the Colorado River into the Central and Imperial Valley at great expense to the American Taxpayer.

The rest of the US farmers cant compete with the long growing season and low clay content soil.

[cswake]

Stossel just covered this topic:

YouTube - Stossel Part 1 - The Tragedy Of The Commons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9kXf9yOMqk)
YouTube - Stossel Part 2 - The Tragedy Of The Commons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5KwMyIKV1c)
YouTube - Stossel Part 3 - The Tragedy Of The Commons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7KQKi5s5-M)
YouTube - Stossel Part 4 - The Tragedy Of The Commons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrhuh6AWRrI)