|
| Click to Go Back |
Commentary
Don’t Drink the Kool-Aid on Water
Plan
By Benita M. Dodd
Georgia’s rain
shortfall and dire drought predictions have led to restrictions across
the
state on outdoor water use even though, as one county water
conservation
official admitted, “It’s like driving on the interstate. You know that
speeding
is illegal, and you might slow down when you see a police officer on
the side
of the road, but once you pass him you go back to speeding.”
Clearly, the
punitive drought management approach of warning then fining
transgressors is
only a Band-Aid. Even more clear is that policy-makers and legislators
can’t
solve the long-term challenges with burdensome, overly restrictive
regulations
that disregard the needs of a growing population and economy as demands
on water
resources grow.
To its credit,
the proposed water management plan recognizes that Georgia’s
hydrological
diversity rules out a statewide, one-size-fits-all approach to managing
those
resources. But while “sustainability,” watershed-based planning and
other
environmentally friendly sound bites get great play, the economic
impact of
decisions on industry, including agriculture and mining – and therefore
the
state’s economy – deserve far greater consideration in the water
management
plan.
For example, call
it selfishness, call it self-preservation, but regions outside Atlanta
resist
helping meet the needs of metro Atlanta, the economic engine of the
state.
Closing off the metro region to new interbasin transfers should not be
tolerated b y planning officials; it’s a regressive, political ploy
that defies
common sense.
Georgia’s ability
to transfer water to where it is needed; its opportunity to take
advantage of a
rainy day and store water to compensate for dry spells, and a capacity
for
flexibility are vital components of a management plan. The foundation
for that
plan must be a scientific assessment that provides sound data,
unambiguous
definitions and cost-benefit analysis. And an adequate, broad-based
funding
stream for this assessment, which will set the course for the state’s
future,
is critical.
Industry and
the public good are frequently portrayed as
incompatible. But the cost and ease of doing business in this state are
what
translates into job opportunities, higher wages and salaries, a lower
cost of
living and a better quality of life. As the
Georgia Public Policy Foundation frequently notes, “Ideas have
consequences.”
While local input
is desirable, the expertise of decision-makers and
agendas of
the “stakeholders” influencing regional planning must be taken
into
account. Good intentions are not enough: Zealous anti-development
campaigns to
hinder property rights by restricting septic tanks, or diminish humans’
access
to water in order to “save the critters,” must provide scientific
evidence of
the crisis and the need for the proposed resolution of that crisis.
A major newspaper
noted recently that Lake Lanier is holding just three months’ storage
while
water is being sent downstream, purportedly to save the critters, “But
no one knows whether the mussels – the
endangered fat threeridge and threatened purple bankclimber – actually need the 3 billion gallons they get
every day.”
Another example
of the consequences of ideas is evident in
the campaign to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, which has inspired
efforts
to grow the ethanol industry in
What matters to Georgians is results, and government should not dictate but allow industry to innovate, to produce results effectively and cost-efficiently. If a water management plan results in uncertainty, inflexibility, over-regulation, micromanagement and time-consuming bureaucracy, taxpayers will bear the brunt as the marketplace is restricted and costs are passed on. Georgians have until the end of the month to demand a plan that holds water: a plan that is scientifically sound, economically viable, market-based, adequately funded, clearly defined and respectful of property rights.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Benita M. Dodd is vice president of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, an independent think tank that proposes practical, market-oriented approaches to public policy to improve the lives of Georgians. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before the U.S. Congress or the Georgia Legislature.
© Georgia Public Policy Foundation (October 12, 2007). Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the author and her affiliations are cited.