Environmentalists Clobber Texas
In April 1993, Murray Rothbard wrote on the Texas water problem, explaining how the government policy was on a disastrous course that could lead to massive drought. That day has finally arrived.
By Murray Rothbard
We all know how the
environmentalists, seemingly determined at all costs to save the spotted owl,
delivered a crippling blow to the logging industry in the North west. But this
slap at the economy may be trivial compared to what might happen to the lovely
city of San Antonio, Texas, endangered by the deadly and despotic combination
of the environmentalist movement and the federal judiciary.
The sole source of water for the
900,000-resident city, as well as the large surrounding area, is the giant
Edwards Aquifer, an underground river or lake (the question is controversial)
that spans five counties. Competing for the water, along with San Antonio and
the farms and ranches of the area, are two springs, the Comal and the Aquarena
on the San Marcos River, which are becoming tourist attractions. In May 1991,
the Sierra Club, along with the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, which
controls the two springs, filed a suit in federal court, invoking the
Endangered Species Act. It seems that, in case of a drought, any cessation of
water flow to the two springs would endanger four obscure species of vegetables
or animals fed by the springs: the Texas blind salamander; Texas wild rice; and
two tiny brands of fish: the fountain darter, and the San Marcos gambusia.
On February 1, 1993, federal
district judge Lucius Bunton, in Midland, Texas, handed down his ruling in
favor of the Sierra Club; in case of drought, no matter the shortage of water
hitting San Antonio, there will have to be enough water flowing from the
aquifer to the two springs to preserve these four species. Judge Bunton
admitted that, in a drought, San Antonio, to obey the ruling, might have to
have its water pumped from the aquifer cut by as much as 60 percent. This would
clobber both the citizens of San Antonio, and the farmers and ranchers of the
area; man would have to suffer, because human beings are always last in line in
the environmentalist universe, certainly far below wild rice and the fountain
darter.
San Antonio Mayor Nelson Wolff was
properly incensed at the judge's ruling. "Think about a world where you are
only allowed to take a bath twice a week," exclaimed the mayor.
"Think about a world where you have to get a judge's permission to
irrigate your crops."
John W. Jones, president of the
Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, graphically complained that
the judge's decision "puts the protection of Texas bugs before Texas
babies."
How did the federal courts horn into
the act anyway?
Apparently, if the Edwards Aquifer
were ruled a "river," then it would come under the jurisdiction of
the Texas Water Commission rather than of the federal courts. But last year, a
federal judge in Austin ruled that the aquifer is a "lake," bringing
it under federal control.
Environmentalists oppose production
and use of natural resources. Federal judges seek to expand federal power. And
there is another outfit whose interest in the proceedings needs scrutinizing:
the governmental Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority. In addition to the tourist
income it wishes to sustain, there is another, hidden and more abundant source
of revenue that may be animating the Authority.
This point was raised by Cliff
Morton, chairman of the San Antonio Water System. Morton said that he believed
that the Authority would, during a drought, direct the increased spring flow
into a reservoir, and then sell to beleaguered San Antonio at a high price the
water the city would have gotten far more cheaply from the aquifer. Is the
Authority capable of such Machiavellian maneuvering? Mr. Morton thinks so.
"That's what this is all about," he warned bitterly. "It's not
about fountain darters."
Wolff, Jones, and other protesters
are calling upon Congress to relax the draconian provisions of the Endangered
Species Act, but there seems to be little chance of that in a Clinton-Gore
administration.
A longer-run solution, of course, is
to privatize the entire system of water and water rights in this country. All
resources, indeed all goods and services, are scarce, and they are all subject
to competition for their use. That's why there is a system of private property
and free-market exchange. If all resources are privatized, they will be
allocated to the most important uses by means of a free price system, as the
bidders able to satisfy the consumer demands in the most efficient ways are
able to outcompete less able bidders for these resources.
Since rivers, aquifers, and water in
general, have been largely socialized in this country, the result is a tangled
and terribly inefficient web of irrational pricing, massive subsidies, overuse
in some areas and underuse in others, and widespread controls and rationing.
The entire water system is a mess, and only privatization and free markets can
cure it.
In the meanwhile, it would be nice
to see the Endangered Species Act modified or even — horrors! — repealed. If
the Sierra Club or other environmentalists are anxious to preserve critters of
various shapes or sizes, vegetable, animal, or mineral, let them use their own
funds and those of their bedazzled donors to buy some land or streams and
preserve them.
New York City has recently decided
to abolish the good old word "zoo" and substitute the politically
correct euphemism "wildlife preservation park." Let the Sierra Club
and kindred outfits preserve the species in these parks, instead of spending
their
No comments:
Post a Comment