Subscribe

One solution to California's drought: tax water

California desperately needs its residents and businesses to use less water. So rather than trying to curb water use through a complex maze of regulation, why not just raise the price though a new state-wide tax on all users?

  • close
    City of Sacramento water conservation representative Steven Upton walks back to his truck after delivering a citation to a Sacramento, California home where sprinklers are running on a mandatory "no watering" day. Compared to the regulations California's government has implemented in response to the state's worsening drought crisis, a tax would be relatively easy to administer, Gleckman argues.
    Max Whittaker/Reuters/File
    View Caption
  • About video ads
    View Caption
of

The idea is straight out of Economics 101: If you want people to do less of something, raise the price. And California desperately needs its residents and businesses to use less water. So rather than trying to curb water use through a complex maze of regulation, why not just raise the price though a new state-wide tax on all users?

Governor Jerry Brown, perhaps feeling constrained by the state’s stiff anti-tax laws, is taking the regulatory approach. Last week he announced an executive order requiring cities to reduce their water use by 25 percent by next year.

But his proposed regulatory curbs such are already being called unfair and will almost surely generate decades of litigation.

Recommended: Taxes in 2015: 7 changes and 9 weird deductions

Farmers, who use 80 percent of the state’s water, are exempt from the curbs.  Worse, any regulations would have to navigate an incredibly complex system of private water rights, governing both groundwater and rivers and streams. And they’d have to be managed by the state water board, nine regional water commissions, and hundreds of local water districts—many of which are likely to be highly sensitive to hometown political pressures.

By contrast, a tax would be relatively easy to administer. If a B-list owner of a Beverly Hills mini-mansion really felt the need keep his green lawn, he could do so. But he’d have to pay a tax.

If a farmer wanted to grow water-intensive crops such as almonds or rice (in a state where it has barely   rained in 3 years), he still could. But his price would include the tax.

If more expensive water makes that farmer no longer cost-competitive, he’d have to invest in water-saving technology or do something else with his land. But it would be his choice. He wouldn’t be barred from water-intensive farming. He’d just have to pay the real cost of using a scarce resource.

The state could use some of the revenue from the new tax to help fund conservation efforts, desalinization plants, or the like. A new report by the Public Policy Institute of California finds that local revenues account for 84 percent of water spending in California (the state contributes just 12 percent), and that while urban systems are in good financial health, other districts—including those in rural areas—face severe shortfalls.  Those localities are often the most resistant to tax hikes but also the biggest per capita users of water.

Revenues from a statewide tax could be used to address some of those challenges.  However, if lawmakers preferred, the state could rebate some of the tax on a per capita basis, or even according to an income-based formula to mitigate the cost of the levy for poor households.  The idea is that revenues from a water fee could help alleviate local water issues, or might be offset by other tax cuts. But a tax on water could help change behavior—a necessary step in a state that simply does not have enough.

Raising water taxes in California won’t be easy. Local water authorities that have introduced tiered rate structures (where those who consume the most pay the highest rates) have already run afoul of the state’s powerful anti-tax movement. And, thanks to a series of voter initiatives, most water taxes require two-thirds voter approval, an extremely difficult hurdle.

I’m not surprised that Brown didn’t want to go there. But maybe after the state struggles with a regulatory solution, it will realize that taxing water is easier, more equitable, and more effective.

The post One Solution to California’s Drought: Tax Water appeared first on TaxVox.

The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org.

About these ads
Sponsored Content by LockerDome
 
 
Make a Difference
Inspired? Here are some ways to make a difference on this issue.
FREE Newsletters
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.
 

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Save for later

Save
Cancel

Saved ( of items)

This item has been saved to read later from any device.
Access saved items through your user name at the top of the page.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You reached the limit of 20 saved items.
Please visit following link to manage you saved items.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You have already saved this item.

View Saved Items

OK