Stewardship Versus Bureaucracy; R, Perry

Finally, it should be noted that the pop ulation explosion has begun to fizzle. Pop ulation growth peaked at 2.1 percent per year in the late 1960sand has declined to its present rate of 1.7 percent. There is no doubt that this trend will continue since, according to the latest information supplied by the World Health Organization, total fertility rates (the number of births per woman) have declined from 4.5 in 1970 to THEFREEMAN IDEASON L1BERlY just 3.3 in 1990. That is exactly fifty percent of the way toward a fertility rate of2.1 which would eventually bring population growth to a halt. Everything is not fine. There are many problems in the world. Childrenare malnour ished. But the point that cannot be ignored is that all of the major economic trends are in the right direction. Things are getting better. Contrary to the constant barrage of doomsday newspaper and television stories, the data clearly show that the prospect of the Malthusian nightmare is growing steadily more remote. The natural limits of what the earth-can support are steadily receding, not advancing. Population growth is slowing while the supplies of food, resources, and even living space are increasing. Moreover, World Bank data show that real wages are increasing, which means that people are actually becoming more scarce.

In short, although there are now more people in the world than ever before, by any meaningful measure the world is actually becoming relatively less populated. 0 STEWARDSHIP VERSUS BUREAUCRACY by Rick Perry E nsuring a safe, plentiful water supply is an issue crucial to the well-being of every American-one that will certainly intensify as we move into the twenty-first Rick Perry is Commissioner ofthe Texas Depart ment of Agriculture. century. Thus, we must answer this ques tion: How can we guarantee a sufficient supply of water to satisfy the necessary but competing demands of agriculture, indus try, and a population that is expected to increase rapidly in the next 50 years? First of all we must challenge the assumpSTEWARDSHIP VERSUS BUREAUCRACY 349 tion that government ownership offers the best solution for protecting our precious natural resources. The premise that puts bureaucratic regulation above the rights of private property owners is not only false, it actually promotes problems for our envi ronment.

Look, for example, at the Pacific North west, where a combination of federally op erated dams and reservoirs and state poli cies that prevent the resale of water rights has contributed to the depletion of salmon populations. The salmon's seasonal need for high wa ter levels to journey to its summer spawning grounds coincides with peak consumer de mand for electricity in the West. So, it would make good sense to produce and sell more hydroelectricity during these peak months and to conserve it when demand is low. Consumers would benefit and so would the salmon. Unfortunately, a maze of bureaucratic regulations-combined with the West's "use it or lose it" rule that often prevents resale of water rights-makes such a sensible solution nearly impossible, and the salmon species has suffered, not benefited. Our natural resources are better left in the hands of private citizens who are more likely than government agencies to care for them.

It's a question of stewardship versus bu reaucracy. Private ownership gives people a vested interest in their property, instills pride in what they own. Ownership also spurs agricultural produc ers to manage their resources wisely-their water as well as their land. In Texas, groundwater management has historically been based on the "right of capture," the decades-old, time-honored premise that be stows ownership of water on the owner of the land above. Under this system, farmers and ranchers have led the way in developing efficient methods of water use. There is room for improvement, however. Though ownership of groundwater is vested in property owners in the Texas Water Code, this property right is loosely defined, which affects the incentive to conserve. A market-based system for groundwater with well defined, enforceable, and transferable property rights based on the surface own ership would more accurately reflect wa ter's economic and ecological value to so ciety. By strictly defining the ownership of underground water, it can be given a val ue-just as land has-and become subject to the efficiencies of the marketplace. Water rights would be more marketable, and own ers would be able to sell water to buyers at a price reflecting market demand.

Such a market-based system would re place government control of water-and the specter of rationing, expensive financing programs, and confiscation of water rights by a centralized bureaucracy. Government involvement would remain in the hands of local water districts that would define own ers' rights and devise enforcement methods appropriate to each locality. A market-based system-achieved by placing a value on water inventories-would motivate agricultural producers to increase even further their conservation efforts and enhance supplies for future generations. D Making Every Drop Count W ater markets offer something for nearly everyone: They can eliminate water shortages, reduce environmental degradation, and reduce government spending, too. -DON LEAL, The Freeman, June 1988 IDEAS ON LIBERTY $ THEFREEMAN IDEASON L1BERlY THE MARKET AND NATURE by Fred L. Smith, Jr. M any environmentalists are dissatisfied with the environmental record of free economies. Capitalism, it is claimed, is a wasteful system, guilty of exploiting the finite resources of the Earth in a vain at tempt to maintain a non-sustainable stan dard of living. Such charges, now raised under the banner of "sustainable develop ment," are not new. Since Malthus made his dire predictions about the prospects for world hunger, the West has been continually warned that it is using resources too rapidly and will soon run out of something, if not everything. Nineteenth-century experts such as W. S. Jevons believed that world coal supplies would soon be exhausted and would have been amazed that over 200 years of reserves now exist. U.S. timber "ex perts" were convinced that North American forests would soon be a memory. They would similarly be shocked by the refores tation of eastern North America-refores tation that has resulted from market forces and not mandated government austerity.