drinking water, Boston Harbor and water reserve

drinking water, Boston Harbor and water reserve

The various public, private and in between goods that are mentioned in this case study are drinking water, Boston Harbor and water reserve. Feasibility of exclusion is a term used to indicate how hard or easy it is to access to a good or service. In this case, the main good under discussion is drinking water. Unlike previous accessibility of municipal water, it is clear that the municipal water is difficult to access for the public use in Boston. This is as a result of increased fee for obtaining water from their well to obtain a fee to facilitate the cleaning of the sewage. This forced some people to opt for drilling private wells, to reduce the costs and making water more accessible to them. For instance, Legal Sea Foods, a Boston restaurant chain drilled its well which is capable of producing enough water to serve them as well as reducing $2,500 in one month cost compared to the fee paid for the municipal pool. By doing this, they are making water more accessible to them. Rivalrous goods are goods that when used by one party, limits its use to other parties. In this case, the municipal water can be seen that it is not rivalrous because it’s a public good and it is accessible to everybody in society. The Boston Harbor falls under public goods. This translates that the good is nonexclusive as all members of the community can access it. Boston Harbor consumption is nonrival. This shows that different members of the society can access it at the same time, and no group can deny the access of Harbor to the other. The other good, in this case, is the water reserve. This is a common pool good, and the general members of the public can access it. Common pool goods can be exhausted when misused by the public. The good is nonexclusive because it is accessible to the public. Also, the water reserve is nonrival as it is accessed by any member of the society without any denial.

The primary objective of the government was to clean to provide uncontaminated water to the public. The municipality of Boston had violated the Clean Water Act by contaminating the water. This made it necessary to initiate a long term program that would help to reduce water pollution in Boston. The program cost $11 million, and the cleanup program would progress for 11 years. The plan was financed through adding fees on the water and sewer bills to the beneficiaries of the Municipal Water system. A polluted free environment is not only beneficial to the Boston government but also the general public. Contaminated water is a common cause of diseases such as amoeba and cholera, and thus the cleanup would reduce such risks.

The financing approach used by the Boston government to raise funds was through a fee added onto the utility bill of Boston water and sewer customers. This approach would involve sharing the cleanup cost among the beneficiaries, which would transform to lower prices compared to when the Boston water and sewerage management would fully finance the activities. However, the approach resulted in unintended consequences. First, this approach forced some individuals and companies to opt for drilling private wells. This is because the public source of water had become more expensive and it would be economical if they would drill their own water. Roger Berkowitz evidences this as he states that the company saves $2,500 in a month after drilling own well. Also, drilling individual wells reduces their costs to increase profitability to the business. Second, the increasing drilling of private wells will lower the groundwater level, which in turn would lead to collapsing of buildings; especially the ones built on swampy areas. Third, the financing approach led to a decrease in revenues raised to facilitate the cleanup. This was as a result of many beneficiaries, especially the business sector, avoiding the added fee on bills through the drilling of their wells.

The main issue raised in this case study is whether the added fee on bills was the best financing option to be used by the Boston government. In my view, I believe this was the only option that would engage every beneficiary of the public good in the cleanup process. The cleanup project was costly, and it would need the public to raise funds to share the cost. The government must have proposed other approaches, but they could not fit. Sometimes, funding public projects becomes challenging because the management cannot hinder people from accessing the facility. Even when one group volunteered to pay for the cleanup, they could not stop others from accessing it. The beneficiaries also derive varying levels of the water and imposing standard fee would not raise enough funds to facilitate the project, which would lead to its closure. Its closure would affect the beneficiaries and the public in general negatively.

The Boston governments can have different options that can help in financing the project despite the low revenue collection for the same. First, the government can induce a requirement of a permit to build a private well. The government can set a license through deriving a specific formula to follow. For instance, it can charge 10 per cent of the total cost for drilling the well. Second, the government can impose annual renewal fees for operating a well. These two strategies can increase the revenues collected for the cleanup project.

Additionally, imposing fees for drilling and running wells will ensure that only a few people consider drilling private wells. This will help to maintain the water reserve levels, which will contribute to other additional benefits. This will encourage people to continue using the public well, which also will help in increasing revenues.