Best way to fight water pollution? Privatize all rivers

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0128/102a.html

It actually makes a lot of sense- If we make rivers completely public, it ends up being incredibly dirty and dangerous- check out the river Ganges in India which is the epitome of a public river...

 

This is the silliest of the silly ideas that spew forth from Forbes.

 

I don't think this would work out the way you think it would.

 

So why was the Cuyahoga River CATCHING ON FIRE before the EPA was created???

 

Are you saying that the river was privatized before the EPA was created?

You've missed the point. The Cuyahoga River caught fire because pollution was going into the river, which was the "commons" with no single owner. If the river had been owned downstream, there is no way pollution would ever have beel alllowed due to property rights.

 

It will never happen. Rivers, lakes, and oceans belong to all people. Everyone has an innate sense that nobody has the right to hog water to themselves like they do land. What an incredibly stupid idea.

 

Have fun getting cholera from public river water then!!

 

Have fun getting asbestos from private river water then!!

 

1. The article is not about overall water rights but merely fishing rights. It is titled provocatively and broadly to get hits and views.
2. On many US waterways, particularly overfished waters near large populations, private management of fishing rights would be superior to public management IMO. Fisherman on such waters should pay more than the cheap price of a fishing license to fish there. Private management would insure those who use pay more, and would relieve vast amounts of pressure from such waters.
3. The article does not suggest anywhere that this is some possible universal solution for US waters generally. Sure, I'd trust pretty much any private company more than the government. Make the companies bid for the contracts on specific highly pressured waterways and conduct operations as a lease for years. The company would get incentives or possible financing tied to increasing water quality and biodiversity.

 

Won't happen. If a river is owned, unless it can have a single owner (almost impossible), the people who own downstream will sue for the asbestos from upstream.

 

Yes, because before Congress intervened and made it illegal to pollute rivers, that system worked out SO WELL.

 

Taxcutter says:
Because it was not private. If I owned the Cuyahoga River and somebody was dumping something flammable on it, I'd send my attack lawyer to get him.

 

Taxcutter says:
It worked out well in Africa with the elephants. When the elephants were "public" nobody made a lot of effort to stop poachers from shooting them for their tusks. After one nation made the elephants the "property" of the locals (who could make all sorts from tourists looking at the elephants, poaching hit the wall. Poachers became hyena food.

 

No. The mythical notion that 'privatization' can solve everything, needs to be reeled-in about now.

 

Taxcutter says:
So you're OK with the Ganges being filthy?

 

What does a river in India have to do with this discussion?

 

Because it is the epitome of a public river.

 

India doesn't have our environmental laws. There's no way to compare that river to a discussion on the privatization of rivers in the U.S.

Or did you really think that there was going to be a global law enforced in every nation?

 

This was once a decent place to fly fish.



Of course, I would attribute this specific example more towards our immigration policy instead of public land ownership.

 

waterways used to belong to the person who owned the land. that did not work out so well for people downstream, well except in those cases where there was no longer a down stream because the owner moved the river to drive them off the neighboring property so he could have it for himself.

 

What grounds would they have to sue if the person upstream isn't doing anything illegal or that is regulated?

 

Many creeks are privatized in effect in Virginia. Every property with a small river or creek is over polluted by cattle urine and manure. This water runs into the James River. In early summer water in the James River is like beer, foamy and brownish. High concentration of cattle on private properties, using feeds and some antibiotics, all mess is washed by rains straight into creeks and in the James River and, finally, in Chesapeake Bay, killing it... Our politicians are shy to raise voice against this.

 

In Virginia, this is perfectly legal, if the creek is on your property. You can see dead cows and piles of cow manure right on the James River banks. Try rafting to see this. I did. "Virginia is for lovers" is our silly motto. Lovers would not want to swim in a cattle urine saturated water. It is looking like beer, not clean water.

 

If there's a profit motive to keeping the money, there will be ways to keep rivers clean...duh

 

You must be lying. As several economic experts in this thread have shown, the situation you describe is ONLY POSSIBLE when water is "public" or nationalized/government-controlled. Private companies are virtuous and would never do what you are suggesting, so I have to think you're lying.