To the editor: The water situation in the Colorado River Basin is a classic “tragedy of the commons” problem: a common resource, belonging to all citizens, that each citizen can optimize to their personal advantage (“Some big water agencies in farming areas get water for free. Critics say that needs to end,” Dec. 13). The salmon fisherman wants free water to produce the maximum number of fish, and the farmer wants free water to grow alfalfa for export. Meanwhile, the city/industry people with a much smaller share in effect subsidize the super-low cost water for agriculture.
The rational use of common water is not possible without rational pricing of the resource. A flat fee for all rain and snow water utilized in the Southwest, including for “nature” uses such as fisheries and wetlands, would force the fishermen, nature advocates and farmers to ask the question of how much benefit they get per acre-foot of water, and the water demand will adjust to the available supply.
The government would probably subsidize the “water fee” for some people, such as environmental advocates. Still, we would know exactly how much that subsidy is.
Dallas Weaver, Huntington Beach
..
To the editor: In the article, staff writer Ian James cites climate change as a factor contributing to the reduced water supply.
When conservatives argue against fighting climate change, they often cite the cost of doing so. They should take into account the costs of not having an adequate supply of water.
Murray Zichlinsky, Long Beach
