After the Herald's recent series on water availability and usage in Utah, a reader might well think that a system with so many complexities, and even occasional absurdities, should be changed. Yet that reader might despair. Water is a legal and political labyrinth.

A first step might be applying some basic economics.

Consider agricultural water: Right now the basic maxim is "use it or lose it." Farmers who don't grab all the water allotted to them risk having the state confiscate their rights. This obviously makes it foolish for them to conserve.

The rule is partly meant to encourage the best use of the resource and to discourage speculation, which is often little more than economic superstition.

Imagine you have an unused parcel of land. A fellow offers to lease it from you. You agree to the deal. Horrors! You've just engaged in speculation! Moreover, renting it out sounds like a better use of the land than letting it sit idle.

The same ought to go for water rights. Farmers should be allowed to "rent out" some or all of their water rights, for limited time periods and only as long as they own the land. Then they'd have a real incentive to conserve. Meanwhile, more water would be available to communities that need it. That's a win-win.

Basic economics would also help conserve residential water use by making people pay its true cost. No need to grab the latest water bill to protest that you already do. Much of the cost for water appears on your property tax bill, and that's a problem.

For example, the Central Utah Water Conservancy District is planning to raise its tax rate to help pay for the Central Utah Project and the Central Water Project, which have brought or will bring water to Utah Valley communities.

There's a serious disconnect, however, between water use and the tax. The amount of water you sprinkle on your lawn, for instance, doesn't appreciably affect regional water use or the multimillion-dollar projects needed to bring it to you. So the tax bill gives you no incentive to use water efficiently. Most people probably don't even notice the line item anyway.

Some also say that this policy encourages excessive development because it camouflages the true cost of bringing water to new housing tracts, thereby misusing land as well as water.

All this means that, in general, conservation efforts are limited to encouraging, prodding and nagging people to use less.

It should be noted that Utahns have cut back significantly. Still, there are limits to what persuasion can do. Put all costs in the water bills, however, and people across this great state will pay much closer attention. Only then will they do better at conserving. And developers might be more prudent in planning new subdivisions.

It is true that while water supplies seem adequate today, using more than we need is unfortunate. Just one truly bad drought could change minds, but why wait for that? If the state's target of a 25 percent reduction in per-capita water use could be achieved by 2030, a great deal of money could be saved on new infrastructure.

It was once foolishly suggested that since agriculture represents only 2 to 4 percent of the state's GDP, that it would make economic sense to redirect the water away from farm fields and toward industrial, residential and commercial uses.

But the percent of GDP contributed by agriculture to the U.S. economy as a whole is 2 to 4 percent as well. So we won't be giving up agriculture, thank you very much. You can't eat GDP.

Yet this doesn't mean that water laws should never be re-evaluated. Quixotic as the quest may be, could a significant revamp of the system be undertaken to realign how water is allocated and who has first dibs? An update might be of broad benefit to all Utahns.

But, then again, perhaps the time for such disruption has not yet arrived. There appears to be plenty of water in Utah to sustain the population for decades to come. The water could get more expensive, but we're not going to run out. Nobody is going to go thirsty.

Water law may be a Gordian knot that's just too convoluted to unravel. Still, making the attempt might yield some beneficial ideas that aim the state toward the future rather than clinging to the past.