In Part 1, we examined the “tragedy of the commons.” In Part 2, we will examine how property rights can be applied to water. The following is an excerpt from The Innovator Versus the Collective
In some ways, water presents more complexity than air. Not only does water exist in oceans, lakes, rivers, and other waterways, it can also be found underground. But the same principle that applies to any resource applies to water as well—those who transform the resource into a human value are the rightful owners.
This can occur in many different ways. For example, a fisherman may improve the habitat in an area of a lake or the ocean in a way that increases the number of fish. He would have a rightful claim of ownership to the area of his improvement. Similarly with other improvements or uses—offshore oil wells, wharves and piers, beaches, or dredging a river to allow larger boats to use it.
In these instances, property rights are not extended to the water itself, but to the waterway.[1] Others remain free to use the waterway, so long as they do not interfere with the use established by the owner of the improvement. For example, if a company dredges a river to permit larger boats to use it, others may still use the river. But they cannot impede the first company’s use of that river by erecting an oil derrick that blocks the river. In other instances, property rights would be extended to the water itself.
For example, a farmer might divert water from a river to use for irrigation. Or a water company might drill a well to supply water to the residents in a community. In these cases, they would have a claim to a specific amount of water, and later users could not interfere with their use. That is, other farmers would be free to also divert water for irrigation. However, they could not divert so much water that the first farmer could not obtain the amount of water that he had claimed a right to. To do so would be to interfere with his property—his well or irrigation system.[2]
But what about pollution? Hardin claims that a free market encourages pollution true. Is this true?
Just as you cannot damage the automobile, home, or other property of someone else with impunity, damaging another’s waterway would carry legal penalties. In short, if waterways were privately owned, you could not morally pollute in a way that damages the property of others:
If an individual (or a corporation) dumps toxins into a river, thereby killing fish stocks or vegetation, or making the water unsafe for human or livestock consumption or for human recreation, he violates the rights of property owners in or along the waterway. Even in unowned waters, one may pollute only if and to the extent that one can do so without (demonstrably) damaging another’s property. But, given water’s free-flowing nature, the ability of individuals and corporations to pollute a waterway without violating another’s property rights is quite limited. Those who do harm another’s property—whether on land or in waterways—risk prosecution and punishment by a government dedicated to protecting its citizens’ rights.[3]
The recognition and protection of property rights allows individuals to act according to their own judgment and use their property as they judge best. If they take actions that damage the property owned by others, a proper government would hold them responsible. Recognizing and protecting property rights provides us with the principles required to have clean air and water.
I hasten to add that there are many technical and legal issues involved, and I am not claiming to present detailed solutions. I am merely indicating how property rights can be applied. The specific details would require the input of competent and rational experts in both the philosophy of law and the relevant technical fields.
In the next post, we will examine how property rights can be applied to air.
[1]. This principle is essentially recognized in riparian rights, which hold that owners of land abutting a waterway have a right to unobstructed use.
[2]. This principle is essentially recognized in appropriative water rights, which hold that an individual who diverts or uses water has a right to that water, and “first in time, first in right.” Appropriative water rights are common in the American West.
[3]. J. Brian Phillips and Alan Germani, “The Practicality of Private Waterways,” The Objective Standard 5, no. 1, (Spring 2010), pp. 57-58.