Back to the Neoliberal Future (again)

Feliz dia de San Isidro! Get ready for a lot of links and tenuous ties -- A series of stories and posts for those of you tracking the future of water use, consumption, and pricing schemes. Many of my fellow aquabloggers make a big deal about whether water is either a commodity or a human right; depending on how "Chicago-school" you are, your own reaction probably varies from "of course you pay for it" to "of course everyone should have access to water as a right." I won't critique positions (yet) but will offer this set of narratives and resources. Try this paper (link) for a perspective on this right to water language; alternatively you can find a number of posts on this issue from the Hayekian perspective at Aguanomics, a recent post is here. The problem with this kind of rhetoric (price it or "make it a right") is that it stays at the binary level (yes/no, black/white, right/commodity). Are there really only two choices to make here? Is it really a choice between Rousseau and Thatcher for water issues? This hardly seems 'creative' and it certainly creates polarized views quickly.

As specific environments are "neoliberalized" (roughly put), it pays to think again about other countries' experiences with full-price costing to farmers, and the precautionary principle applies when this kind of reform is done too quickly, as in the case of Mexico. Yes there is a strong link between "prices" and water consumption (figure courtesy of C. Brooks!). But this roll-back of the hydraulic state agencies is occurring in the U.S. almost everywhere, in this difficult economy, regardless of policy goals on water management (read about the Arizona water resources case here). There is much to be learned from other places, especially the ones that swallowed Washington Consensus rhetoric and policy implementation whole-sale.
(updated 5.17.10 - thanks CB)
Next time: bottling or piping water?