RALEIGH – Failing to enact needed legislation to address an important issue is bad. But enacting the wrong legislation is worse.
Earlier this year, Gov. Mike Easley proposed sweeping changes to environmental law and the state-local relationship as a response to the recent drought afflicting much of North Carolina. He may mean well, and his administration may have every intention of putting people and resources in place to implementing the proposals wisely, but they are controversial for good reason. They rely primarily on statewide mandates, on centralizing power, on extending governmental oversight to previously private transactions, and on restrictions instead of incentives to promote the efficient use of water.
In the midst of the current session of the General Assembly, as leaders try to hammer out a budget deal and members itch to go home to campaign, there’s a good argument for thoughtful inaction on Easley’s initiative. As difficult as last summer’s drought proved to be, North Carolina communities muddled through. They already had a number of tools at their disposal to manage water scarcity, ranging from market pricing to use restrictions, and most used them. No community ran out of water. It seems obvious that localities can wait for another year or two, if a delay is required to ensure that new state legislation doesn’t needlessly tramp on local prerogatives, private initiative, and property rights.
Based on what I have read of Easley’s plan, lawmakers have a lot of careful study and work to do if they want to produce sound legislation rather than a panicky response to a hot (and dry) issue.
For example, the governor seems convinced that local elected officials can’t be trusted to borrow each other’s best ideas or work out deals to address imminent shortages. I don’t see any justification for such a view. Will North Carolina localities make some poor decisions? Certainly. But state officials are unlikely to improve on the local performance, based on past experience.
As for water transfers, it is an exceedingly bad idea to force communities that invest their dollars in new water projects and conserve their resources to transfer water to communities who don’t plan ahead and find their spigots running dry. Talk about perverse incentives – such a policy would punish the good and reward the bad. If we want to change the incentive structure to encourage wise policies, then make sure that water-rich cities can sell excess capacity to neighbors at a market price. That will reward them and send a market signal, in the form of higher water rates, to discourage industrial, commercial, and residential development in communities that lack adequate water infrastructure.
As for another Easley proposal, to extend state oversight further among private water systems, firms, farmers, and even households, aggressive action will likely doom the bill. Yes, water flows and tables don’t respect property boundaries. It makes sense to measure large-scale private taps into aquifers. But the benefits policymakers might derive from monitoring a much larger number of wells and private water systems aren’t likely to be large enough to justify the intrusion in the minds of most North Carolinians – unless, of course, metering is just a prelude to the government metering and controlling such private use directly, which will never fly. Private-water consumers and well owners already face incentives to conserve, such as higher power bills. Would the state be willing to compensate property owners for the cost of drilling and maintaining their wells if its regulations reduced their value? Doubtful.
Running parallel to legislative debate on the drought is a statewide study of North Carolina’s water resources, trends, and challenges. Its research findings are due within the next couple of years. Before lawmakers in Raleigh make broad, lasting changes in state water policy, it might make sense to wait to learn the facts first. I know that’s not the way Raleigh usually works, but let’s try something new.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.