Thoughts on the Water Debate

I thought that the water debate between Steven P. Eerie, Professor of Political Science and Director of Urban Studies at UC San Diego, and Michael George, former VP of Water Development at the American States Water Co. and current water attorney, was much more of a "debate" than the oil debate we attended two weeks ago. The two well qualified men addressed the issue of declining fresh water supply in Southern California, and also talked about possible alternatives to solve the problem.

The main issue that the two men differed on was that Eerie supported giving subsidies to water companies in exchange for conservation and believed in the public sector, while George was opposed to these subsidies because he did not believe it represented a market approach and (he supported the private sector). Eerie added that we needed to figure out how to align political incentives with the right kind of policy, and on this point George agreed with him in that there needs to be a political capability of getting things done within policy framework.  He also posed five major alternatives: improve management of current system, de-salination, conservation, reuse of top water, and reallocation. 

I think that water is definitely an important topic because we rely on it and often take it for granted. It is more important than oil because we can technically survive without oil but we need water for physiological purposes. It was also kind of scary how our water supply is starting to decline already in 2009. One point that struck my curiosity was how Antarctica holds 70% of the world's freshwater; is there a way that we can access/effectively use this water?

I'm not sure whether I support subsidies personally but I did believe that George's 5 major alternatives plan was a strong idea and at least gives us a basis of which to start taking action. Overall, George was a much more effective and clear speaker (perhaps because he is a lawyer?) than Eerie, who kind of put me to sleep.