As you’re pointing out, the news is a realization that businesses are in better off than expected, pushing up asset prices. But the news also suggests higher interest rates, pushing down asset prices.

Today, the downward effect dominated; but plenty of the time the upward effect is larger!

And finally, thanks to my advisors, classmates, funders, family, and to anyone who made it down this far! 🎉 11/10

Thanks for reading! My larger research agenda focuses on water, cities, and housing within environmental, urban, and public economics. I am on the academic job market this year and am very much hirable. You can find my full JMP here: sites.google.com/view/benjono...
10/10

The mandate reduces utility-level water use. These results suggest that resource management is why some local environmental and urban policies are designed as inefficient mandates: incentives induce larger rebound effects which in turn induce some environmental or urban harm. 9/10

Variable pricing results in greater welfare gains disproportionately benefitting homebuyers. However, even though both policies lower metropolitan-area level water use the same amount, variable WIFs cause a large local rebound effect, increasing water use for adopting utilities. 8/10

Finally, using the model I compare variable pricing to another counterfactual, common tool to manage water scarcity: mandating that new housing limit outdoor irrigated areas. 7/10

I develop a parcel-level equilibrium model of the new housing market where landowners adjust lot sizes and water use based on costs.📊

The model replicates the reduced-form evidence, and I find that variable pricing improves consumer welfare by $3,500 per household. 6/10

Increased density may create a *local* rebound effect where more homes are built, raising water use in areas with variable WIFs.

➡️We need a model to untangle these effects and assess welfare implications of variable WIFs and counterfactual urban water management policies. 5/10

Using 🚨new data 🚨 on utility policies and water use from aerial imagery, I find that variable WIFs cause builders to reduce lot sizes by 15% and irrigated areas by 30%, cutting household water use by 15%. I also find that fees are fully capitalized into house prices. But... 4/10

Some utilities use variable WIFs, pricing fees based on expected water use, rather than flat fees.

These fees are steep—the average new single-family house in Colorado had a $20,000 WIF in 2019! 💸 3/10

The textbook solution to the rising cost of providing water for urban growth? Usage-based water rates.

But in practice, many water utilities rely on water impact fees (WIFs)—fees paid by builders to connect new homes to the public water system. 💧 2/10