There is nothing to figure out. The state controls the price (and allocation) of water. Farmers use up huge amounts of water very inefficiently, but they have political power. They use this power to get their water cheaply and to get the state to effectively subsidize their water.
It’s an entirely political issue. To quote reason.com
The reason that California is suffering from a water shortage is the same reason why there were bread lines in the former Soviet Union: Central planning that allocated goods by fiat to favored groups rather than price signals.
I agree with most of that, but I think it takes it too far. The bread lines in the Soviet Union were due to the need to hide the favoritism, while the special farmer prices are explicit and lots of favoritism to farmers is well-known. And while farmer political power drags out the process, I don’t think it’s the main culprit. This is largely the legacy of a system designed for a different environment, where water was not a binding constraint. Switching systems when a commons becomes oversubscribed is very difficult.
I don’t see any central planning in California. Yet, I would say the two situations are similar for a different reason: the bakers and the farmers don’t really own the resources that pass through their hands. However, the Soviet Union had the advantage of a working black market, while the California farmers are basically just wasting water, in the hope that a maintaining their quota will lead to a larger payout when the system shifts.
The bread lines in the Soviet Union were due to the need to hide the favoritism
Hide? I don’t think the fact that party apparatchiks didn’t stand in those lines was a secret to anyone.
the legacy of a system designed for a different environment, where water was not a binding constraint.
I think you’re factually mistaken. Water rights were always a big deal in the Western US precisely because water is the binding constraint in a lot of places. All the special water rights, the quotas, etc. reflect the system which always recognized that water was precious and in short supply.
Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday imposed mandatory water restrictions for the first time on residents, businesses and farms, ordering cities and towns in the drought-ravaged state to reduce usage by 25%. … The reduction in water use does not apply to the agriculture industry.
environmentalists … have forced the state to abandon critical water-storage reservoir projects to avoid disruption of wildlife and ecosystems. But that’s not all they’ve done. They also divert 4.4 million acre-feet of water every year — enough to supply the same number of families — to restore water runs such as the San Joaquin River, allowing passage of salmon and other fish. Without paying a dime, environmentalists have taken control of nearly half of California’s water.
If I am a farmer, can I buy water on the open market?
And the system is stupid, too. As far as I know some farmer water quotas are “use it or lose it”—if you don’t draw the water allocated to you this year, your quote will get reduced next year. Any guesses as to the consequences?
There is nothing to figure out. The state controls the price (and allocation) of water. Farmers use up huge amounts of water very inefficiently, but they have political power. They use this power to get their water cheaply and to get the state to effectively subsidize their water.
It’s an entirely political issue. To quote reason.com
I agree with most of that, but I think it takes it too far. The bread lines in the Soviet Union were due to the need to hide the favoritism, while the special farmer prices are explicit and lots of favoritism to farmers is well-known. And while farmer political power drags out the process, I don’t think it’s the main culprit. This is largely the legacy of a system designed for a different environment, where water was not a binding constraint. Switching systems when a commons becomes oversubscribed is very difficult.
I don’t see any central planning in California. Yet, I would say the two situations are similar for a different reason: the bakers and the farmers don’t really own the resources that pass through their hands. However, the Soviet Union had the advantage of a working black market, while the California farmers are basically just wasting water, in the hope that a maintaining their quota will lead to a larger payout when the system shifts.
Hide? I don’t think the fact that party apparatchiks didn’t stand in those lines was a secret to anyone.
I think you’re factually mistaken. Water rights were always a big deal in the Western US precisely because water is the binding constraint in a lot of places. All the special water rights, the quotas, etc. reflect the system which always recognized that water was precious and in short supply.
No? source:
and more:
If I am a farmer, can I buy water on the open market?
And the system is stupid, too. As far as I know some farmer water quotas are “use it or lose it”—if you don’t draw the water allocated to you this year, your quote will get reduced next year. Any guesses as to the consequences?
The wealth of party members was obvious, yet still it was important not to explicitly mention it.