I am not one to normally side with the greenies, because usually their arguments rest on violence, coercion, and the restriction of property rights. Even when they get it right it’s by accident – the drunk throwing darts will hit the occasional bullseye. Case in point, the recent stir about the relative abundance of water in the Great Lakes region compared to the relatively parched Southwest – which of course wants some of the Great Lakes water to continue its booming expansion. The greenies, as per usual, will frame their position in terms of conservation and clothe it in “feel-good” arguments.

Environmental groups on Wednesday blasted comments by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson that northern states with plenty of water should share it with parched states. …

“I want a national water policy,” Richardson told the paper…

Richardson, a democratic presidential candidate, is clearly a closeted Communist. I expect to hear about “national water policies” in the same sentence as “five-year plans” and “we will crush you!” But a national water policy – you’ve got to be kidding me! We aren’t the ones who moved to some godforsaken rock in the middle of a desert! We aren’t the ones trying to build 36-hole golf courses in the middle of said desert, or trying to build vast residential developments without the requisite resources. But in the “national interest,” (i.e., so that other people can do whatever they want without consequence) all of us who were smart enough, or not retarded enough to move to a fucking desert are supposed to supply the jawas with their precious water?

The greenies on the other hand, well, they kind of recognize that this sort of national-socialism is a bad thing:

“With so many thirsty states with growing populations, it’s a wake-up call for us,” said Lisa Wozniak, director of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters.

But they haven’t pinned down the basic economics which makes it so, which you might have learned in Public Finance 101: If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it. Subsidizing desert development only encourages further desert development, and hence creates an even greater burden to be borne mostly by people who don’t live in the desert. Those states will continue to experience growing populations until and unless the citizens of the other states are no longer forced to subsidize their expensive propositions such as sending water into the desert.