Nestle CEO: Declaring water a public right "an extreme solution"

[Torie]

Water rights exist out there worth billions of dollars. Water law is a blast.  Public versus private rights is such an awesomely complex web.

The dude is not talking about "access" to water (I'm sure he has no problem with navigable rivers being in the public domain for transit), but use or consumption of water, which has a price, which should be valued by the market. We all pay for water bills. You give subsidies for those who can't afford it. Whether farmers should get subsidies to grow stuff otherwise not economic to grow, because they are not paying for the full value of the water input, has been controversial since rocks cooled. I think the answer is in general no, but that's just me.

[Torie]

Snowguy, it is one thing to be able to grow food for a certain price. It is another for folks to have the funds to buy it. Two different issues. In that regard, I would note that an econometrics study by a professor at Iowa State in Ames, concluded that the ethanol heist pushes up the world price of corn by about 3 bucks a bushel. That one program is probably doing more to spread hunger in the poorest parts of this planet, than all the other ill conceived public policies combines, and indeed that one heist may more than offset all the transfer payments of one kind or the other to mitigate hunger.  Yet, few consciences among those in the know are shocked. If I had celebrity, I would make it my business for those in the know, to be a far larger cohort than those in the know at present. It's pure unadulterated evil.

And if you want beyond getting rid of the ethanol heist to push food prices down, think about revamping that wetlands law run amok, that keeps a lot of very efficient crop growing land out of production, in exchange for the government giving the wetland owners checks - like say to me.

[Torie]

No, it is about saving habitat, not about flood control and the like. It's ludicrous. But of course negative externalities should be paid for, and if for productive farmland, they can be shown, I am willing to listen. I also accept erosion control regulations, and incentives. If you want wetlands, and are willing to pay for it, use areas where the opportunity costs are relatively low. The program as written is oblivious to that. I have yet to talk to a bureaucrat willing to attempt to defend it, who administers this inanity. They know better.

[Torie]

Torie, do you have a link to that study?  I want to read more about this.

Voila.