Supreme Clean Water Day

NRO ^ | February 21, 2006, 8:17 a.m. | Jonathan H. Adler

[hedgetrimmer]

potentially devalues any piece of land I happen to own.

If 'watersheds' become the thing government protects instead of your property and your property rights, the environmentalists have effectively usurped our constitutional government and replaced it with a form of collectivism that knows no boundaries.

[.cnI redruM]

Here's a question/idea...

Given that pollution credit trading proved a flexible and ecologically successful way of limiting the use of acidic coal (i.e. it helped slow down acid rain a great deal), why wouldn't the same principal work in rivers...I'll get back to you in few minutes on how to mathematically assign the overall cap...

[GreenFreeper]

Given that pollution credit trading proved a flexible and ecologically successful way of limiting the use of acidic coal (i.e. it helped slow down acid rain a great deal), why wouldn't the same principal work in rivers.

I think that would be a good idea, just not sure how feasible it would be. I think air and water pollution, while similar, are very different. Air pollution is a more temporary problem- that is the atmosphere has a pretty incredible ability to self regulate. Water pollution, on the other hand, is reliant upon many systems working together and often takes much longer to self-correct and can be very persistent. Additionally, air pollution and water pollution are subject to very different scales of dilution. A mistake in terms of air pollution is buffered by the entire atmosphere while water pollution is largely contained by each particular watershed. Once a watershed becomes contaminated it becomes a big problem that is not easily fixed.

The gov't has tried to cap pollution with the use of TMDL's and its proven to be quite difficult to set those limits. What happens in wet and dry years, etc. I like the idea though I think the legalese could backfire.

[GreenFreeper]

it helped slow down acid rain a great deal), why wouldn't the same principal work in rivers.

Another thing I forgot to mention is the difficult in distributing pollution credits. Since industry is often not evenly distributed how do you ensure that a particular river, stream, or lake is not exposed to more pollution than it can handle (assuming some agreement can be made)? This would seem to me to severely hamper the ability of a free market to limit pollution. Do you cap pollution per watershed?

[.cnI redruM]

You would have to track the density of contamination in the watershed and track the removal rate. The prices of shares would adjust, and in dry years, where the watershed was, in a sense, less capable of defending itself, pollution rights holders would receive margin calls on those shares to account for the differential.

Adding the margin call risk does a great job of limiting the ability of a firm to hoard shares and either
a)corner the market
or
b) become a significantly higher order of magnitude polluter.

They would get financially killed every year there was a drought.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>> Do you cap pollution per watershed?


The mathematics I played around with involved a theoretical differential equation that would equate the total watershed cap to the total watershed removal rate, based upon the maintenance of a steady state density in PPM below hazard threshold levels for the pollutants emitted.

So yes, you limit total shares based on what a watershed can self-abate over a given delta t.

[Beagle8U]

"This needs to extend beyond navigable waterways...that marsh the protects the water supply is important to more than just the land on which it resides"

If you want to control someone Else's private property, you should buy it, then its your choice!

[GreenFreeper]

The mathematics I played around with involved a theoretical differential equation that would equate the total watershed cap to the total watershed removal rate, based upon the maintenance of a steady state density in PPM below hazard threshold levels for the pollutants emitted.

Wow, sounds like you really thought this out. Ok, this sounds pretty solid in theory but I have some concerns (pretty minor).

Watersheds can 'spill over' or 'divide' in wet and dry years. Multiple watersheds often combine during extremely wet years (though this is likely to help the causes) and in dry years, watershed can splinter. Say 2 watersheds get cut off due to lower waters, how does this impact removal rates? The differences in water volume could be huge. What about other factors that can influence removal rates. Temperature, water clarity (particulate matter), conc. of bio-organisms, water velocity, etc. These can fluctuate quite drastically from year to year, and can cause some pretty big changes in removal rates. Ideally, the limits would be buffered for such changes ut how do you accommodate changes of this magnitude?

[.cnI redruM]

You reduce the amount of water regulated until the order of magnitude reduces to a level you can accommodate. That is, if a watershed can be composed of anywhere from 13 to 16 tributaries, you break your market basket down to the tributary level.

[GreenFreeper]

That is, if a watershed can be composed of anywhere from 13 to 16 tributaries, you break your market basket down to the tributary level.

I would suspect that no matter how you broke it down, removal rates could vary +10X very easily (if not more). It seems as though you need to create some kind of forecast model to predict removal rates from year to year. This could make atmospheric science seem pretty simplistic by comparison. Both have many many variables but at least with the atmosphere your going with a fairly stable volume/quantity.

[sergeantdave]

"If 'watersheds' become the thing government protects instead of your property and your property rights, the environmentalists have effectively usurped our constitutional government and replaced it with a form of collectivism that knows no boundaries."

Well said.

The writer of this story completely missed the criminal activity perpetrated by the feds.

The EPA fascists have been trying to throw Rapanos in prison for years. Both the bureaucrats and the fed prosecutor engaged in perjury, trespassing, extortion and civil rights violations.

There needs to be a congressional investigation on this case. These bureaucrats and the prosecutor need time in federal prison for 10 to 20 years.