The House of Representatives voted on July 27 to restore the acceptable level of arsenic in drinking water to that set in the final days of the Clinton administration. The new arsenic level, 10 parts per billion, was assailed as too expensive by the Bush administration and repealed by executive order. This move prompted outcry from Democrats and environmentalists who accused the Bush administration of waffling on pro-environment campaign promises.
Now that the House (with the help of nineteen Republicans) has backed the former president’s last minute environmental concern, politicians of both sides are flurrying to gain the most political advantage. The White House, for its part, is dancing only slightly out of step to the music set by the Democrats. President Bush is not opposed to the new standards, we are told, he merely wants to wait until “sound science” supports the move. The Environmental Protection Agency, headed by former New Jersey Republican governor Christie Whitman, is in agreement, initiating three independent studies to determine “a more protective and more affordable arsenic standard”, according to a July 28 Associated Press report.
Democrats are in full cry to paint themselves as the real saviors of American drinking water, even if their eleventh hour cavalry charge contains more spin than substance. Michigan Representative David Bonior, chief sponsor of the amendment prohibiting EPA from funding the lowering of arsenic levels, said that “When you turn on the kitchen sink, you ought to be able to drink what comes out without worrying about being poisoned.” Rep. Bonior is right, but one must wonder why this outpouring of preoccupation with what comes out of the kitchen faucet is only just now reaching political fruition.
Conservatives would be correct in viewing with askance this newfound liberal cause in light of the fact that an eight year Clinton presidency saw no moves to lower arsenic levels. It’s only too bad that they are completely defenseless against yet another big government ploy. For as long as water remains a political rather than a free market issue, it will be dominated by those best equipped to fight a battle of sound bytes and political planning. And the Republican Party is far-from-ready to fight for market solutions when so much more can be gained from the “Me, too” approach to environmental issues.
The supply of drinking water must first be understood as a non-government problem. Government exists to protect individual rights, not guarantee a particular standard of living, which is what piped water represents. If this weren’t true then all the centuries before such technology existed would depict one long chain of rights violations by omission, which is a gross distortion of the very concept of individual rights. Members of society respect the rights of others by not acting in a certain way, not by being compelled to act in a certain way. Simply put, if one has the right to have water piped to his kitchen, then a moral government would be obliged to force people to provide it. Ironically, this approach to rights did exist for about two and a half centuries in the American South, when someone’s alleged “right” to cheap cotton (and someone else’s “right” to cheap labor) was used to justify slavery.
The provision of water, like any other commodity, is a matter to be left to the private initiative of the marketplace. The demand for such luxuries as indoor plumbing represents peoples’ willingness to pay for it; the profit motive assures that someone will invent the wanted good or service and find an affordable way of getting it to the masses. It was private companies like the Addyston Pipe and Steel Company that expended the time, energy and resources of over a century ago to make the existence of water pipes possible. There is no logical reason why this same free market should not be the source of water companies as well.
Private water companies, operating in a totally free and open market, could for a number of reasons provide water to American homes far better than any political body. First, private companies are well known for being far more efficient than government agencies, and for providing much better service. Few but the most anti-market ideologues will contest this fact. A plethora of little water companies dotted around the country would most assuredly bring much lower water prices to most communities, as well as the type of competitive service that Americans have grown accustomed to in markets like personal computers, long distance telephone service and dining.
But what about quality? The greatest reservation that people have to a totally privatized and open market in the provision of water services to residential customers is concern for the quality of the water that people would be drinking and bathing in. But that is precisely the problem that exists under government-run water companies now, and the current debate about arsenic perfectly illustrates this point. While government is in charge, people can fully expect political haggling and special interest influence to determine the outcome of this controversy—not free market competition.
Under a system of private water companies, though, we could expect that the owners of such firms would have a very personal interest in seeking out the soundest advice on the acceptable level of a particular contaminant, such as arsenic, in their water. Should a particular company choose wrong or, worse, choose to ignore the suggestions of leading experts and proceed to deliver highly contaminated water into homes, customers would have recourse to liability law if they feel they have been wronged. When ABC Water Inc. faces a class action suit it will have no choice but to accept the very real economic consequences of its actions.
Government water boards, by contrast, must only worry about the political consequences of their decisions. What, after all, is the likelihood of a successful prosecution of the local government-run water service when the city council can prove it was only following the recommendations of the EPA? And anyway, even a successful suit would only result in higher water rates for everyone as local taxes were raised to recoup what is lost through liability.
Private water companies, however, could not turn to the government to make up such losses. A genuinely private company, too, would pass on costs, but the striking difference is that ABC Water Inc. would have to face either competition or the ever-present threat of competition if its services fell below standard. When faced with the liability for some ailment suffered by its customers, ABC Water would have to alter its ppb standard or pay out even more in damages to every new set of plaintiffs. With each penny paid out in compensation, its prices would rise, meaning the loss of customers to a competing business and smaller profits. If no competition existed in the current market, rising prices would be the surest way of attracting it. Any company operating under such circumstances would have no choice but to modify its behavior, or eventually perish.
Perhaps most importantly, successful lawsuits would inspire other free market water companies to adopt higher water quality standards as well. The obvious result of all such activity is that private water companies that already sought to provide the best possible service at the lowest possible price would have no choice but to also incorporate quality into their product. Government, on the other hand, need not worry about price, service or quality; it faces no market catastrophe if it violates the rights of its customers or ignores the signals of the marketplace.
This ongoing debate about the acceptable level of arsenic in drinking water shows why government should always remember its legitimate role in our lives. Any “solution” to this issue will be a purely political one, which means that the final decision about how much poison is admissible in your water will be settled by a vote in a far away political chamber, not by a judge and jury that has heard all the relevant arguments. Even if the decision finally reached is a good one, we’ll never know because there will be no economic feedback to support it. Worst of all, if the political solution is wrong, we’re stuck with cancer-causing drinking water.
President Bush and the Republican Party should have the courage to demand that government at all levels gets out of the water business. Then we will have drinking water free from the contamination of both politics and impurities.
07/29/01
1,410 words