If you care about property rights, you can read my inaugural property rights newsletter and subscribe here.
Here’s some of the timely analysis in the newsletter:
______________
In a recent op-ed, Scott Mooneyham writes:
Should a private company that no longer provides jobs here and is not a publicly-regulated utility continue to be allowed to control the waters of a major North Carolina river for another 50 years?
Supporters of Alcoa’s re-licensing say the issue is one of property rights. They’re right.
The North Carolina constitution makes clear that the waters of the state are the property of the people, not a single company.
My response:
1) Alcoa is not claiming to own the water.
2) Water rights law is poorly developed in this state, but what law does exist makes it clear that property owners have the right to use the water.
3) Where exactly does it say in the Constitution that the water is the property of the people? I must have missed the section of the Constitution saying water isn’t the property of a single company.
4) Even if such language existed, “property of the people” does not necessarily mean the water is not available for private use.
5) Mr. Mooneyham suggests that this issue would be different if the company provided jobs or was a public utility. Why would it matter given his logic that nobody except the state should use the water?
Mr. Mooneyham is doing precisely the same thing that many North Carolina policymakers are doing. They see an opportunity to take over someone else’s property because they don’t like the way it is being used (without any real evidence of problems with its use) and think the state would do a better job of running a hydroelectric dam than Alcoa. This thinking is both arrogant (they assume they know what is for the best) and foolish (thinking the state can possibly do a better job than Alcoa).
Don’t be surprised if the state transfers this property to another private entity such as land developers or another utility company. This could be another Kelo-type situation.
