The libertarian paradise of Rio Verde Foothills is nestled out in the desert near Scottsdale, Arizona. It was formed specifically to avoid the rules and regulations required for civilized society, but it is situated in dry, harsh conditions. Arizona law requires developers to plan for 100 years of water use, and every new development has to engage in a process for securing water rights in compliance with the law.
But Rio Verde Foothills avoided that requirement by exploiting a big loophole in the law: It only requires it for subdivisions larger than five homes. Guess what developers in Rio Verde Foothills did to circumvent that—they built five-home lots. For them, it was an easy payday, and the self-styled “rugged individualists” who chose to live there could brag about keeping government off their backs and paying fewer taxes. The area doesn’t even have a government.
For a while, all was good; Rio Verde Foothills was supplied by Scottsdale. Water trucks would roll out to a tap at the edge of town, fill up, then truck that water to individual homes, filling a standard 5,000-gallon tank buried in their yards. But for years, the city warned that the agreement could not continue in perpetuity. It needed the water for its own growth. Rio Verde Foothills ignored the issue—until the day that Scottsdale finally cut them off. "We've been telling them for five years since this began that we are not their permanent water solution," said Valerie Schneider, Scottsdale Water's Public information officer. "At some point, we have to realize this is our water, we're in a drought, we're in a Colorado River shortage so we have to take a stance."
One resident hilariously told The Guardian that “her community didn’t ‘want a handout’ from Scottsdale. They want time to figure out a plan and, to her, Scottsdale shutting the water off is unneighborly and un-American.” Apparently, five years of warning wasn’t enough. Nothing says “AMERICA FUCK YEAH” more than putting up a house in the middle of a desert, without any regard to infrastructure, in a place designed to avoid laws, regulations, and government, and then crying when someone else won’t cater to your needs and whims.
Residents have several options: one, have the private water haulers find other sources of water, which they’ve already done. But those sources are further out and are just as subject to being cut off, as Scottsdale did. This increases uncertainty and costs. Libertarian free-market principles can get pricey!
Another option was, well, government. Incorporating could give the community more options for water supply in future but forming an official town or city brings requirements, such as paved roads, street lights, more taxation and rules. Horrors!
Another option would be to create a new water district. When some residents proposed forming their own self-funded water provider, other residents revolted, saying the idea would foist an expensive, freedom-stealing new arm of government on them. The idea collapsed.
Rio Verde residents are now suing the city of Scottsdale to force them to continue providing water, because while they don’t want government on their doorstep, they fully expect some other government to cater to their needs. You know, because they’re such rugged individualists. This story is being repeated all around Arizona, from Kingman in the Mojave desert, to Cochise County near the Mexican border. It always pits deep-red conservative-libertarian regions against a sudden realization that maybe government rules and regulations exist for a reason, that society can’t exist without them. As one Republican quoted in the Kingman article says, “We are very conservative – I think we’re one of the reddest areas of a red state right now. I don’t think securing your water supply is a partisan issue, or it shouldn’t be.” You see, once they are affected, it’s no longer partisan.
Scottsdale is about to agree to a three-year extension of Rio Verde Foothills’ water, assuming it can get additional water from outside sources. Ironically, those rugged Rio Verde libertarians will get a temporary reprieve because of—you know it—government.
No comments:
Post a Comment