All government rules already have "teeth"

Because of the government caused water shortage, we "customers" (read: mulcted taxpayers) must not use goods in a way that the government Rulers think is evil. Soon, the Exeter government's water restrictions will have "teeth," which will fine naughty taxpayers and even shut off their water supply.*

First, any real producer of goods would be ecstatic when demand for a good is high. If Poland Springs produced "municipal" water, they would encourage us to use as much water as we like. There'd be commercials for us to water our lawns, wash our cars, and have water balloon fights. High demand would stimulate increased production. More water would be available. There would be no "shortage" of water because a company has far more foresight than a bunch of tax-funded civil servants. 

But, instead, we get threatened with robbery not to use a good. This is an important lesson: every demand of government is backed up by physical force. Don't forget that.

*It's also useful to point out some hypocrisy. The same people who support these punishments would be outraged if a private company prohibited someone a basic necessity like water. In fact, this is the very reason why so many people support all the islands of socialism in society: water production, utilities, roads, etc. 

Exeter, Portsmouth government: always behind the times

As the water restrictions around here tighten, I wonder: how do Town Rulers, self-proclaiming their stewardship of "our" resources, mismanage municipal water so thoroughly. According to the 8/30 Portsmouth water report, "This [August] is the eleventh consecutive month with less than average precipitation."

If competent businesses, which operate on the voluntary price system, produced the water supply, steps to alleviate a drought would have been taken months ago. Maybe the price would rise. Maybe extra water would be "imported" to reservoirs to keep them full. Maybe new, more productive rain-catching or well-digging capital goods would have been invented.  

No, sorry, not allowed, Citizen. We have to have the same stinking, wasteful, dirty water produced by bureaucrats at large. And we're not even allowed to use it how we wish.

Potable water: supply destroyed by government

Well, there you have it. The Exeter Town Rulers have officially imposed controls over our use of water. It's interesting how people say this is a "shared resources," yet we are allowed to use it only in pre-approved ways. How dare I wash my car?

A drought is a real thing. Farming is tougher, and crop yields are lower. A water shortage is a government-caused problem. There is no shortage of water at the grocery store because private water production benefits from the price system. Socialized water does not. Socialized water operates under bureaucratic decisions, not market decisions. The prices do not reflect the relative scarcity of water.

If potable water were produced privately, as soon as producers got a whiff of a possible drought, they would have immediately responded. Prices would have risen, and the ensuing profit would have promoted increased water production. The increase in the supply of water would have driven the price back down toward "normal" levels at a higher supply.

There is no water shortage...

...in the marketplace. Go to any supermarket, and you can buy all sorts of water: sparkling, spring, flavored, boxed, bottled, canned, whatever you please.

It's only when a good is regulated by government do we see shortages. This is best summed up by Say's Law: markets tend to clear. Supply tends to equal demand, and the resulting price is the market price. When government imposes a price ceiling on a good, there will be more demand that supply. Only governments create shortages.

If Exeter's water supply was owned and operated by private companies, prices would move freely as supply and demand fluctuate. When there is a drought (supply decreases), the market price will increase as demand falls (along the demand curve, all else equal). This is the natural and peaceful way to conserve water. Further, high market prices will encourage production of the very good that has limited supply. Entrepreneurs competing for profits actually increase supply and eventually lower the price.

Instead, we have a problem caused by intervention: government ownership of water creating a shortage. Instead of ending the government ownership, another intervention is applied: political rationing. So, instead of consumer demand and conserving water, we have the Town Rulers determining what we can use and when.

They are so wise.

On the market, there are no shortages

Newmarket has a water shortage. To be clear, a shortage occurs only when there is a legal price ceiling that is below the natural, market price of water. As such, shortages are induced by governments. On the market, when the supply of a good is limited, its price rises and people conserve the good naturally. For some reason, this is considered evil (those nasty price gougers!), but it’s the only peaceful way to allocate goods. And, in fact, it is beneficial because a higher price will be an incentive for more producers to increase the supply overall. 

In the case of government-owned water, however, when there is a “shortage,” the residents are the culprits. They are the bad people who water their lawns too much or wash their gas guzzling cars, or whatever. It’s a bit odd how it is considered evil to charge a higher price for a good, yet it is not evil to prohibit, under the force of law, use of the good.  

See Murray Rothbard and Bob Wenzel on this matter.

Poisoning the well?

Recently, it was divulged that the Exeter government's water management has led to contaminant levels that have exceeded some regulatory amounts. Maybe these regulatory limits are absurdly low (like other government-mandated limits, such as BAC or driving speeds). Maybe not. I have no idea if this is serious or not. (Of course, the attitude is "there is nothing to see here, move along, citizen." The notice says, in part,

...some people who drink water containing trihalomethanes in excess of the MCL over many years may experience problems with their liver, kidneys, or central nervous system, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

Ha ha ha. It's not an emergency, but it might be if you drink our water long enough.  

I do know that the Exeter government cannot "lose customers." (The notice laughably called us "customers" instead of mandated participants). If this were a private company (think Poland Springs, or Dasani), this would be a PR nightmare, all over the news. Not so for government-owned resources. "Ho hum, we'll do what we can. Oh well!"

"Historic stuff"

The eloquent Dan "beautify my storefront" Chartrand is patting himself on the back after two town governments broker a deal to control the water supply across both towns. Tell me, what is "historic" about a bunch of cronies controlling a scarce good? 

What would be really historic is if the town governments ceded control over all water production to freely competing individuals. Only then would the water supply be abundant and clean. Until then, we will see more slightly poisoned water, reduced supply, government scolding us to consume less water, and ultimately rationing. 

Speaking of rationing, the 150,000/day average over a year will be broken. Stratham will use up its supply earlier in the year (because the costs are artificially low, so that the demand is stronger than the supply) When the day of reckoning comes ("Hey, you're at your cap, you have to cut your water usage from October onward,") there will absolutely be some "exemption" to continue consuming the same amount of water.

Yet again...

who owns the water rights?

"Chemical levels in children's blood tests higher..."

"...than unexposed peers"

That's the recent headline in the local news. Question to consider: who owns the water supply?

If bottles of, say, Poland Springs were contaminated, it is clear who is liable and who should pay damages. When "we" (i.e., the State) owns something, a few unimportant people get chopped, but certainly nothing goes out of business.

Also, if the USAF end up paying for any damages, it is really the hapless taxpayers who foots the bill.

How "historic"?

There is a funny article about the upcoming "historic" selectmen decision about the multi-million dollar waste water treatment plant. This word "historic" belies an over-inflated self image of the selectmen. They are somehow determining the destiny of Exeter, and only they, the all-knowing selectmen, have the intelligence and prescience to make such a decision.

It is important to realize that they are not experts in the water services industry. Neither is the politically appointed Water/Sewer Advisory Committee.  Neither are they entrepreneurs, and so they make poor predictions about whether people will be satisfied. None of them can direct scarce goods to satisfy the most urgently desired demands. There is no price system, which requires private property and consumer feedback. 

Moreover, The idea of "saving money" is a null point. Consumers spend as much or as little money as they must in order to acquire the goods and services that they want. They do so freely, of their own will. For Exeter's waste water, "saving money" is just an artifice to make it sound like these people are being responsible and making judicious choices. They cannot be judicious because they are using money that was expropriated from people. (Incidentally, even the ostensibly private engineering firm Write Pierce does not change this argument. And Wright Pierce is just capitalizing from a crony deal with the Exeter government.)

Exeter bureaucrats are just playing business with other people's money. If their "historic" decision fails, no sweat. Maybe they don't get re-elected, though blame for political blunders is usually spread evenly so as to preclude a single person being held responsible.

Real entrepreneurs make "historic" decisions every day, and they do so with their own resources or resources voluntarily entrusted to them. The burden of failure lies with them. And they don't go on and on about how historically relevant they are.