Water, a basic human need, can be fined in California now. Recently, California put into effect a new law fining Californians for using more than 55 gallons per capita a day of indoor residential use.
The average American, according to an article by CBS Sacramento, uses 35 gallons per day. A basic shower, about 8 minutes in length, uses 17 gallons. That’s one person’s shower. Most of us take one shower a day, some people two. So a family of, say, four or five is really going to struggle to stay below the max.
The fine, though, doesn’t apply to specific “over-users” but actually goes to the water distribution company responsible for getting California residents their water. The fine is nothing small either, sitting right now at $1,000 per day, charged to the water distribution agency at fault.
So when the government sees that the company is distributing more on average than the allowed, that company is fined respectively. But how do the companies make up for the fine? In order to continue providing their services, they increase the cost of water, hurting everyone.
But, is it wrong to say that people should not expect to pay more for water in a state in a very serious, environmentally threatening drought? I, as much as the next guy, hate fines, especially when they look more like taxes, but capitalism runs on supply and demand, and that extends to public services.
In Ohio, we pay less for our water per unit. This is because there is an abundance. We don’t have to worry about not having water. In California, a lot of their water requires piping across states or to be shipped in water trucks. This costs extra, after paying the price of the water.
States that do not see a lot of rain, like California, Nevada, Arizona along with other hot dry states, will each all pay more because of the cost to have it shipped or passed through pipelines.
The way to handle the water dilemma though in California would have been to allow these water distribution agencies to handle the drought without government intervention, that will in this case as in many others, hurt our capitalist economy by enforcing more rules preventing free trade and consumer choice.
This law is really quite unreasonable for many Californian’s. The intentions are pure, as they always are, but I guess it will take some time before we can see the effect this may have on California.
Many of us feel we will never have to worry about drought, especially if you are a resident in Dayton, but even our area has had to ship in water before.
I am hopeful that California’s law will fulfill its state governments intentions and will help care for its struggling environment.
Kelsey Fitzpatrick
Staff Writer