In which I give myself a headache

I know absolutely zilch about economics, and listening to other people talk about it makes my head hurt. I don't know why money matters have always eluded my otherwise not too shabby brain, but they do. And so when a political argument turns to the economics of the situation I often give up or tune out, preferring to lose over having to atempt to grasp concepts that make me feel like I've suffered a sudden serious brain injury.


However, in a recent discussion with someone about energy issues the concept of energy as a commodity was introduced, and at least a little part of my brain absorbed some of it because I keep thinking about this concept as it applies to the current water crisis. One of the biggest problems with the Atlanta water situation is that water is not treated as a commodity whose value fluctuates based upon traditional concepts of supply and demand. The cost of each gallon remains the same whether the lakes and reservoirs are full to bursting or we're pumping the botton of the proverbial barrel, or at least it has so far.


Why shouldn't water cost more when it's in short supply? Businesses that use a ton of water, such as car washes, restaurants, or bottling companies would have to either raise their rates or make a determination whether their business would remain viable despite the change in costs...just as so many other businesses need to raise their charges when gas prices are high, when there are shortages of certain kinds of produce, or when any other commodity becomes too expensive to continue production at current rates. If a restaurant was going to be faced with $2000 in additional charges on their water bill if they brought every single patron a glass of water when seated, whether they asked for it or not, you better believe the restaurant would consider being more efficient with their water, or charging for it if requested. Similarly, if I want to get my car washed, it should cost me $35 right now instead of $20 because it's a luxury in this sort of drought. And if Coke wants to keep bottling soda in Georgia by pulling water from our supply rather than buying it elsewhere, then they will have to raise the cost of their product in the state. Industry uses and wastes a great deal of water and giving them a financial incentive to be more careful makes perfect sense to me.


Some, including probably me, would argue that allowing the cost of water to rise significantly in a time of severe shortage such as this would endanger poor individuals, who still need to be able to drink, cook, shower and flush their toilets even if they can't afford to pay their water bills. I get this concept, just as I understand that in the middle of a 100 degree summer heat wave you cannot shut off someone's electricity and expect them to just deal with it. If mom can't pay the bill that doesn't mean her children should go unbathed, or that they should live in filth because of an inabililty to flush their toilets. There are currently restrictions on utilities' ability to cut off necessary services when doing so would endanger the residents of a dwelling, and those would need to continue even if the cost of water rose dramatically.


For the rest of us who can afford to pay our bills but would like to control them, having the price of water tied to supply and demand would be a strong incentive to us to conserve in times like these. Instead of abstract worries about contributing to the crisis or a do-gooder desire to conserve, if water became far more expensive then people would have a stronger financial incentive to take shorter showers, do fewer loads of laundry, and stop watering their lawn despite the ban.


That we have traditionally undervalued water by not adjusting its price with supply and demand just shows how truly environmentally stupid we, as Americans, truly are. Apparently production of one gallon of ethanol requires the use of thousands of gallons of water, and yet we almost never hear anything about any environmental negative to ethanol production. Why not? Because we presume we will never run out of clean water so the tremendous amount of water needed is not a negative? Well, so much for that plan. Apparently a ton of water is needed for other alternative energies as well, including Alabama's nuclear power plant which requires constant flow from offshoots of the Chattahooche for its cooling tanks. In fact, environmental arrogance and an aura of invincibility are largely to blame for the current crisis, since previous prognosticators such as former Governor Barnes talked about the importance of building reservoirs to make our state more drought resistant but the Republican takeover of the governor's mansion and legislature have caused those plans to mysteriously disappear. People have been trying to tell us this was coming, but we don't listen and just keep developing, bringing people into the state, letting developers pollute our rivers and lakes and waste our water with almost zero repurcussions, firing the one person on the DNR actually concerned with water quality, until suddenly we have a crisis that nobody is prepared for.

It's time for that sort of idiocy to stop. Companies will have a financial incentive to build private reservoirs or water treatment plants if they believe they can sell the water they collect or treat as a valuable commodity. This whole Atlanta vs. the rest of the state fight could be cleared up with some financial brokering if we admit that water is valuable and that those of us with the people and the money should have to pony up to get it from those with the water down south.

So maybe I still don't understand economics; I don't know. But perhaps one way to get people to take environmentalism seriously is to make it economically smart for them to do so, by showing them the cost of waste and mismanagement. Treating water like the valuable commodity it surely is seems like a good start.