Originally posted by Byrd
What I learned is that water falling ON land falls under the legal jurisdiction of the government of that area
Water UNDER the land belongs to the person who owns the land.
This is correct, I own land with a man-made lake created by a dam. I have the dam inspected regularly for safety and for compliance capability on
waterflow. Below it are water sources for the municipality, fish farms, agriculture, etc. Were I to stop the waterflow temporarily (I cannot stop it
for long), to fill my lake more, I would be causing harm to all those down the river from me.
However, I also have 5 springs on that same property, and as long as I intercept that water before it confluences with the lake, its infeed, or
outfeed, then that water is mine.
I had considered at one time, using the spring water to create a bottled water company, but when I had my group run the business plan, the
sustainability for the company was not there (sufficient volume and retained earnings).... it was better financially to let the springs continue to
feed the rivers.
As long as we sustain a condition whereby it is better to let the springs feed the rivers, then we have proven out the very principle which the OP and
posters here are contending. A sound one.
However, if we inflate and bubble the water market (intentional pun yes
) - to such a state where it is more profitable to intercept water than to
allow it to flow into its natural infrastructure, then we have let our social manipulation bubble economy run amok, and will cause great damage.
So yes, water can be sold, but CEO Peter Brabeck did not appear here to grasp the value chain implications of that principle. Which is pretty sad
since he is Chairman (not CEO) of a 90 billion Swiss Franc company, and apparently he does not grasp this - only desires the income involved (note the
difference, in socialism you focus on the income, and in capitalism you focus on sustainability and retained earnings....).
But, then again, he is the expert - and we should defer to him, according to those who are 'oh so much smarter'.
edit on 21-4-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)