Designing Water Conservation Policies That Match Sense With Cents: A Case Study Approach

As Georgia increasingly faces the strains imposed by water scarcity, there is growing interest in water conservation programs as a means for dealing with the scarcity problem. There are many types of residential water use conservation programs found in communities across the United States. An important question then becomes: is there one, or possible one set, of conservation policies that apply to all conditions of water scarcity faced by communities with water scarcity problems -- i.e., does a "one size fits all" approach to the design of conservation programs make good sense?In an effort to address this question, we conduct case studies of two cities that face very different water scarcity conditions: Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Phoenix, Arizona. In Albuquerque, where alternative sources of water are very expensive, we find a wide range of incentive-based conservation programs as well as aggressive public outreach and education programs. In Phoenix, where alternative water supplies are relatively inexpensive, incentive-based programs have been rejected; the City relies solely on public outreach and education programs.Examination of the manner in which these two cities have designed their residential water conservation programs provides a clear manifestation of the importance of a government giving close consideration to the benefits and costs associated with any particular conservation program design -- the importance of considering the extent to which the expenditure of "cents" makes good public policy "sense." Such an approach is highly recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and is a basic tool that has been used in U.S. cities whose conservation programs are widely recognized as being exceptionally effective. These observations then raise questions as to the efficacy of state-wide policies requiring, for example, restrictions on outdoor water use in all communities in a state. Our study suggests that Georgia's citizens may well be better served by the adoption of policies designed to "fit" the particular circumstances of water scarcity that is faced by communities affected by the policy. Working Paper Number 2005-00

Enhancing Water Supplies In The Flint River Basin: A Preliminary Exploration Of The ASR Alternative

This study represents the first of a multi-stage project for assessing the physical and economic feasibility of using Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) technology as a means for offsetting water use by new industry in Southwest Georgia. Water quantity in the Flint River Basin is a critically important issue. As a result of water scarcity, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) may decide to permanently cap water use permits in the Basin at present levels. This very preliminary exploration of the potential use of ASR technology suggests considerable promise for this technology to serve as a means for enhancing water supplies for municipal and industrial (M&I) uses in the Flint River Basin. Our findings should, at a minimum, serve to stimulate interest on the part of local governments in Southwest Georgia in the possibility of establishing a Regional Authority that manages an ASR system that would provide a means by which the region can take its water future in its own hands. Growth, as it relates to access to water, would be locally controlled. The viability of the use of ASR technology must be decided by a regional authority whose decisions will be guided not solely by direct system costs but also by considerations related to the benefits of allowing for the region to accommodate the water needs of new industry and business. In this regard, consideration of such things as job creation and impacts on local tax bases will be of primary importance. The second phase of our ASR research will shed more light on these issues.In this report, we also consider the potential feasibility of using ASR technology to offset agricultural water use. Our preliminary findings in this regard are much less promising in strict economic terms than those related to M&I uses. However, further analyses of long-term social benefits associated with accumulated aquifer storage could change these results. Analyses of these and related topics will be forthcoming in the second phase of this research. Working Paper Number 2005-00

Conservation Pricing Of Household Water Use In Public Water Systems In Georgia's Coastal Communities: A Preliminary Exploration

The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of price on residential water use in public water supply systems in Georgia's Coastal region. Particular attention is focused on measures for the elasticity of demand for residential water use inasmuch as a showing of price inelasticity may make the wider adoption of conservation pricing more palatable to small communities with concerns that raising water prices will reduce much-needed revenues.To clarify the nature and importance of the elasticity measure, consider the following simplified example. A community sells 100 units of water for $1.00 per unit. Its' total revenues are$100. Suppose price is increased by 20% to $1.20, and that the units purchased falls by 30$84.00. In this case, we say that demand is "elastic;" the quantity of water used by folks "stretches" relative to the change in price. With elastic demand, rising prices mean lower total revenues. Suppose, however, that with the 20% price increase, demand fell to only 90 units -- a 10% decrease. Total revenues are now $108. In this case we say demand is inelastic -- quantity doesn't really "stretch" much when prices rise. If demand is inelastic, rising prices means higher revenues.From our limited, phase one efforts in these regards, we use aggregate water pricing data from 50 public water supply systems in 28 coastal counties that participated in a survey conducted during late the period 2003-2005. We find strong evidence that, at the margin, residential water use is indeed affected by prices charged for water in this region. We also find what we regard to be reasonably compelling evidence suggesting that residential water demand is inelastic over the range of marginal prices observed in our sample. This latter finding suggests that the use of conservation pricing as a tool for water conservation may not have an adverse effect on community revenues. Indeed, it may well be the case that increasing water prices will increase, not decrease, the community's revenues from the sale of water.In moving to phase two of this work, a great more will be accomplished in terms of refinements in the nature and quality of data used; greater efforts will be placed on attempts to identify functional forms that will yield best estimates for residential water demand in the state. Our ultimate goal is to be capable of responding to the needs of Georgia communities in the coastal region for information related to how one might improve the design of a community's water rate structure, and to conservation pricing policies that will best serve their interests and the interests of the state. Working Paper Number 2005-00

Post Racialism?

The 2008 election of President Barack Obama represents a halcyon moment in U.S. history. President Obama’s election begs a critical question: whether his nationwide landslide victory catapulted the United States, with its sordid racial past, into a truly post-racial place as many claim. While Obama’s election was possible due to important changes that have taken place in the United States in the past fifty years, the reality is that profound disparities continue to exist between minority and white Americans that show no sign of dissipating during this Obama presidency. Of these profound disparities, some of the most striking include those in the United States prison population, where 55% of all federal prisoners are African American while only 13% of the U.S. population is black. Further, the academic achievement gap between blacks and whites persists even for the black middle class, continuing to fuel theories of white supremacy and black inferiority. In a society where 74% of black Americans have personally experienced racial discrimination and where 76% of African Americans believe that they do not receive equal treatment from the police, the claim of post-racialism rings hollow. In arguing that much hard work remains before Americans can authentically claim a post-racial arrival, this Essay examines the recent 2008 financial market crisis as well as several recent isolated instances of American racial disharmony (Henry Louis Gates, Shirley Sherrod and Jordan Miles), in order to lay bare any post-racial claim

Thug Life: Hip Hop’s Curious Relationship with Criminal Justice

I argue that hip hop music and culture profoundly influences attitudes toward and perceptions about criminal justice in the United States. At base, hip hop lyrics and their cultural accoutrements turns U.S. punishment philosophy upon its head, effectively defeating the foundational purposes of American crime and punishment. Prison and punishment philosophy in the U.S. is based on clear principles of retribution and incapacitation, where prison time for crime should serve to deter individuals from engaging in criminal behavior. In addition, the stigma that attaches to imprisonment should dissuade criminals from recidivism. Hip hop culture denounces crime and punishment in the United States in a way that essentially defies the underlying crime and punishment philosophy adopted and championed by U.S. legislators for decades. Hip hop artists, since the inception of hip hop as a musical genre, have rhymed in a narrative format that starkly informs all listeners and fans that the entire foundational regime of prison for crime in the United States is suspect, illegitimate and profane. As U.S. criminal law and punishment is profane and illegitimate to many, as hip hop artists fiercely argue, then the primary foundational underpinnings of U.S. criminal justice is lost on the hip hop generation, that of deterrence and stigma. Because, as hip hop aggressively describes, crime and punishment in the U.S. is fundamentally unfair, inequitable and biased against people of color and the poor, then punishment for committing certain crimes in America is viewed by the hip hop nation as illegitimate and imprisonment for committing suspect crimes is unaffecting. Hip hop culture has engendered in the global hip hop generation a tradition of exposing racial inequality and social injustice throughout the world, but particularly within the United States. To that end, this Essay argues that much like Critical Race Theory espouses a tradition of \u27looking to the bottom,\u27 that American purveyors of crime and punishment law consider the viewpoint of the hip hop nation, which espouses a better, more equitable theory of punishment and justice in the United States

The Associated Dangers of Brilliant Disguises, Color-Blind Constitutionalism, and Postracial Rhetoric

Affirmative action, since its inception in 1961, has been under siege. The backlash against affirmative action began in earnest almost immediately following its origination through President John F. Kennedy’s and President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Executive Orders. Organized hostility in opposition to affirmative action crystallized early with “color-blind” theories posited and adopted, “reverse discrimination” alleged and embraced, and constitutional narrowing through adoption of white-privileged justifications. Enmity against affirmative action continues unabated today as exemplified by recent academic writings and studies purporting to prove that affirmative action positively injures African Americans and recent state-wide campaigns seeking to eradicate affirmative action through state constitutional amendments. Further, a more subtle affront to affirmative action has emerged recently as dozens of commentators and millions of Americans now argue that, with the election of Barack Obama as president, the United States has officially entered a postracial era. Postracialism, in averring that the election of an African American president formally moves the nation past its racial problems, essentially maintains that affirmative action has run its course, is no longer necessary, and is a relic of a past that has been affirmatively overcome. Affirmative action, as a progressive doctrine aimed at diversifying our classrooms and country to the benefit of all and leveling the American playing field, appears to be fighting for survival. Into this breach steps Professor Deirdre Bowen and her crucially important study Brilliant Disguise: An Empirical Analysis of a Social Experiment Banning Affirmative Action. In this article, detailing the results of her empirical study, Professor Bowen carefully analyzes the experiences of minority students currently attending U.S. undergraduate and graduate programs in the hard sciences. While her findings are disheartening (i.e., racism and discrimination continues at alarming rates in upper-level educational institutions), they are critical to understanding what must be done to ensure equality and social justice in the future. What is remarkable about Brilliant Disguise is that Professor Bowen asks the right questions and gathers the right information that allows her to provide the kind of empirical analysis that brings honesty and reality to the affirmative action debate. For the past decade, as I have carefully followed, engaged in, and written about affirmative action, I have often and openly lamented that modern opponents of affirmative action are frequently dishonest and disingenuous in their opposition. The most outspoken critics of affirmative action have warily refused to ask meaningful questions and have continuously balked at opportunities to analyze consequential issues, data, and material that might serve to cast long shadows over their antagonistic positions. Anti-affirmative action adherents, from the beginning, have focused their attention on the wrong criteria in evaluating the doctrine’s potential and effectiveness, leading to wrong-headed arguments that serve to perpetuate white privilege and power. Opponents of affirmative action routinely rely on several “go-to” arguments as justification for why the doctrine must be eliminated. For the most part, arguments such as stigma, color-blind constitutionalism, and mismatch have gone unchallenged from an empirical perspective, allowing oppositionists to use simple opinion to perpetuate their objections. But now, Brilliant Disguise provides valuable empirical data that can be used to evaluate the justifications most often posited for ending affirmative action. This data allows vital insights into race relations in the twenty-first century and the utility of affirmative action as an effective tool in the quest to achieve social justice in the United States. Professor Bowen’s findings are explosive, and in my mind, serve to undermine each of the primary backward-looking oppositionist arguments against affirmative action. To that end, this Commentary will introduce and inspect three of the most popular arguments posited by affirmative action opponents: stigma, mismatch, and a combination of reverse discrimination and color-blind constitutionalism. Part I describes Justice Clarence Thomas’s stigma justification for eradicating affirmative action and then describes normative contentions that have been made in response. Part II explores Professor Richard Sander’s mismatch theory as a basis for eliminating affirmative action. And Part III examines Ward Connerly’s reverse discrimination and color-blind ideal justification for terminating affirmative action. Each Part then summarizes the critical findings of Brilliant Disguise and applies those findings to illustrate how Bowen’s new data undermines each oppositionist argument in insightful ways

Wide Right: Why the NCAA\u27s Policy on the American Indian Mascot Issue Misses the Mark

Of the many civil rights and social justice issues that continue to cloud United States race relations, one persists in dividing parties: the use of American Indian mascots and imagery by collegiate and professional athletic teams. Scholars and academics weigh in annually on this divisive issue, while certain university administration officials vigorously defend continued use of Native American mascots and monikers at their institutions. Across the United States, various university officials and alumni debate the continued use of mascots such as the “Fighting Sioux,” the “Running Utes” and “Chief Illiniwek.” In a broader context, the mistreatment and abuse of American Indians and, for that matter, discrimination against indigenous populations around the world, continue to receive widespread attention. Recently, federal governments in Canada and Australia have acknowledged historical abuse of native populations and have offered official apologies and regrets. Though belated, these governmental acknowledgments of racism, discrimination, hostility and abuse serve as a reminder that indigenous populations, particularly American Indians, suffered incredibly at the hands of white oppressors. Badges, indicia and reminders of this abuse by the United States government and its white citizens remain today. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) recognized and acknowledged this holdover effect of discrimination and abuse in the summer of 2005 when it determined that some college and university mascots, monikers and images have the potential to offend American Indians. Those teams with potentially offensive and abusive mascots and imagery included the Florida State Seminoles, the Central Michigan Chippewas, the North Dakota Fighting Sioux, and the University of Illinois Fighting Illini. After the NCAA described these mascots as offensive to Native Americans, the organization declared that these schools could no longer use their mascots in postseason athletic contests. In its policy promulgation, the NCAA declared that schools with offensive mascots and imagery could not display their logos on the court or field or on a uniform, nor could they allow students to don the mascot costumes on the sidelines during any postseason play. As might be expected, the NCAA’s policy has been controversial and has captured the attention of academics and scholars. While the NCAA deserves credit for tackling this divisive issue in an area of consistent debate and contention for the past three decades, the current policy only begins to address the issue and ultimately fails to find a reasonable solution. Instead, this policy can be viewed as the first half-step needed to resolve this problem of abusive and hostile imagery used by NCAA member institutions. If American Indian mascots are genuinely hostile and abusive, then they should be completely eradicated. A mascot cannot be abusive in the postseason but non-abusive in the regular season. If a mascot is abusive, as the NCAA has deemed it to be, then there is no place for it amidst America’s academic institutions. The restriction of the NCAA’s new rule to postseason play is incongruous. In adopting this new policy, the NCAA has chosen to straddle the fence rather than fully addressing the problem of offensive and hostile American Indian imagery. This article suggests that the NCAA should completely ban the use of Native American mascots that it has already deemed hostile or abusive. In arriving at this conclusion, the article seeks to provide a comprehensive examination of the history and circumstances that led the NCAA to finally take a stand on one of the divisive civil rights issues of our time

The Farcical Samaritan’s Dilemma

(Excerpt) This article explores one of the foundational pillar theories of Law and Economics and specifically Public Choice Theory as espoused by Nobel Laureate James M. Buchanan: the “Samaritan’s Dilemma.” Using the Biblical parable of the Good Samaritan, Buchanan imagines a “dilemma” faced by the Good Samaritan when encountering a beaten and bloodied man left to die on the road to Jericho. Using Game Theory, Buchanan constructs a moral quandary that the man from Samaria must necessarily resolve within himself in deciding ultimately whether to lend aid to the beaten man left to die. Law and Economics, born in the twentieth century, theoretically establishes “efficiency” as its baseline. In evaluating the law from this efficiency perspective, neoclassical Law and Economics economists’ primary hypothesis is that individuals are rational and respond to incentives in a rational fashion. Law and Economics is built on the fundamental belief that markets, particularly free markets, are “more efficient than courts.” Undergirding this theorizing is the presumption that incentives are the primary motivators of individual behavior; how individuals respond to incentives provides a laser-like focus for Law and Economics. If human actors are “rational and respond to incentives” in a rational manner, then how rationality is defined becomes important for Law and Economics hypothesizing. Bottom line rationality for the Law and Economics economist is that individuals are motivated by self-interest and that the rational reaction to an incentive will be to act in a self-interested, wealth-maximizing way. Put simply, a Law and Economics economist would consider a legal situation efficient where rights are allocated “to the party who is willing to pay the most for [them].” Conversely, when an incentive generates an action that results in a penalty, individuals will perform that action less to avoid the penalty

Ain\u27t No Glory in Pain\u27: How the 1994 Republican Revolution and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act Contributed to the Collapse of the United States Capital Markets

Ain\u27t No Glory In Pain recalls the deregulatory legislation adopted by the 104th Congress in 1995 and 1996, including the shareholder lawsuit limiting Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) and connects several of those measures with the historic corporate malfeasance that marked the capital market collapse of 2001-02. I propose, in the face of recent calls for further efforts to deregulate crucial industries and further hamstring shareholder lawsuits, that Congress and the SEC work together to reject certain provisions of the PSLRA and act in ways to ensure investor protection in this post-Enron/WorldCom environment