The population of people using the water from the river is not taking into mind that the water is not an unlimited resource-farmers included. The water from this river is clearly a key resource and without proper precautions the resource will be eliminated. This issue of tragedy of the commons is usually one of the key causes for every natural resource conservation problem. This says a lot because it means that individuals are not learning from their prior mistakes around the country and world. Tragedy of the commons presents itself periodically throughout our lives-this being a more serious issue, as well as showing the effects that can come of simply ignoring the issue. This stems from individuals using a resource, like water, for their own self-interest until the resource becomes limited or even extinct.
The attempt of establishing a water-master would benefit the deteriorating river, however the water-right holders would have to pay for the salary of a water-master (Hamilton). Although it would be helpful, there is little desire for a watermaster amongst the residents of Menard (town affected by the worsening river). The article goes on to explain certain individuals dealing with the adversity of the lacking water source. Giving examples of how it's difficult to run a farm without the flowing river. However there are also bits from individuals denying that the deterioration was their fault whatsoever. Andrew Roll who is a farmer that lives in Menard admitted that he can fully understand all of the complaints, yet will not take responsibility for his contribution to using up the water-he explains, "I understand their complaints, but I can't see how it's coming from our usage" (Hamilton). The article continues to explain how a watermaster could be appointed without legislation but has been held off due to the fear in how the citizens may react (Hamilton). It also mentions how an option is to not do anything about the issue as too much damage has already occurred, which I find to be a sad excuse for laziness.