“City Dwellers Drill for Precious Fluid” Case Study

“CityDwellers Drill for Precious Fluid” Case Study

CityDwellers Drill for Precious Fluid” Case Study

Public,Private, and in between types of Goods

Thevarious types of goods (public, private, and in between) involved in“City Dwellers Drill for Precious Fluid” include water, both inthe Boston harbor and drilled wells, Boston businesses, the KaledinGroup, and National Water Education Council. The difference betweenpublic goods, private, and those in between are based on nonrivalservices applied on them. According to Mikesell (2013, pg9), the useof a good or service by a single person does not necessarily precludethe concurrent full use by other people at an additional cost ofservicing the product or service in question. For instance, Mikesell(2013, pg10) gave an example of the Mississippi River. Should a richperson decide to build a bridge on it for personal use, and justbecause he or she thought it could look beautiful, the extra costslikely to be incurred may well be financed by other people, and itthus seize to be private property and becomes in between.

Theprimary objective sought after in the “City Dwellers Drill forPrecious Fluid” case study is to engage in an provide the preciousfluid, which is water, to the residents of Boston at an affordableprice. The primary objective also revolves around the need for theBostonians to look no further, but to focus their energy towardsdemanding for a better service. This is after the water rates went upand prompted to go down, approximately 900 feet above the surface tofind water.

Buthow was it being financed? According to Mikesell (2013, pg19), anaverage sewer bills and water in Boston have since tripled since 1985in which the skyrocketing prices are aimed at ensuring the covercosts at the Boston Harbor are used to clean it up. The incurredcosts were financed by the Bostonians. Considering the high costsprompted the residents to drill their wells in search of the preciouscommodity, it is evident that the customers used to finance theproject. The National Water Education Council’s executive directorsays that as the clients “abandon the public water system,” theclients that remain must have to finance and shoulder the burden.

Thetype of good involved is water, which means that the kind offinancing approach applied in the case is not appropriate. This isbecause water is a public good. Unless it is made private, whichmeans every Bostonian is in a position to access his or her well,then the commodity remain public. Being public means the financingshould be done by the government through other money-generatingprojects. A large amount of money are needed for the project, andaccording to Mikesell (2013, pg26), should be done by the government.Through contractual procedure, a private firm is given a contract tocarry out the process of availing water to the public at the expenseof the government.

Governments’Options

Failureby the government to afford funding of its projects is citedconsistently to be a barrier to the implementation of its greeninfrastructure. The Boston project offers an advantage, in that itcreate a lot of benefits which means competition for diversity infunding sources are attracted. Some of the options the Bostongovernments have included one, strict implementation and complianceof the clean-water laws (Mikesell, 2013, pg23). Secondly, thegovernment has an option of strengthening the water council board tooverlook the water project issues of funding. And thirdly, the Bostongovernment has an option of formulating laws that will overlook waterpollution menace experienced in the hazardous-spill Boston watersites and ensuring the drilled wells are tapped away from pollutedwater.

Theoptions are aimed at looking at the economics involved in solving thewater menace in the Boston area while focusing on the safety of theresidents. This is after the considerations placed on the Bostonwater table, which according to Mikesell (2013, pg27), are immersedon below the water table, and the swamp covering it. Additionally,the above options are presented to the Boston governments after theresidents opted to drill their won wells, which is very costly, andthus allows the government to lobby for the minimal information aboutthe imbalance of interests likely to be generated by all process.

Recommendations

TheBoston government is experiencing a lot of challenges as far as watershortage, sewerage bills, and water bills in the area are concerned.The cause of all this began when the Boston Harbor cleanupaccelerated the cover costs. This has led the residents to shouldergovernment responsibilities of opting for a much better access toaffordable and clean water. On the other hand, the residents usingthe old system have to be involved in higher funding, which is also aproblem.

Iwould recommend the government to go back to the drawing board,identify the cause of the problem. First, the government should haveto carry out research studies, tastes, and interview in the area todetermine the area’s ability to sustain and retain water. Thearea’s water table should be determined, marked, and planned beforethe water project is commenced. This will help the government interms of finances and their ability to solve the water problem, whichhas since become a bigger problem in Boston.

Iwould also recommend the government to take part and join the Bostonresidents in constructing wells, which will sustain the largepopulation in the area. I recommend that government take measures asfar as pollution and sewerage spills are concerned about formulatingand implementing strict laws on pollution. The laws will ensure theresidents can adhere to them, and that the level of water pollutionis reduced.

References

Mikesell,J.L. (2013). FiscalAdministration, 9th Edition