An expensive and unnecessary trial in an Edmonton courtroom continues to cost Alberta taxpayers thousands of dollars.

Some PCB-laden drops of oil fell from a light fixture in Commonwealth stadium in August of 2001, spilling on to spectators watching the World Athletics competition. Alberta Justice claims that Edmonton did not report the spill immediately, and charged the City with violating provincial environmental laws.

It's costing hundreds of thousands of tax dollars just to pay for Edmonton's defence, plus provincial tax dollars to pay for prosecutors, judges, clerks, and other court costs. There is only one taxpayer, and there are only so many prosecutors, courtrooms and judges. Is this good use of court time, seeing two levels of government fight each other Wouldn't tax dollars be better spent to prosecute things like theft, vandalism, assault, murder, and dangerous driving

"Let justice run its course," say some, pointing out that this six-week trial could shed light on what actually happened in 2001.

But justice runs its course quite differently when people pay their own legal bills. Only 3% of civil actions make it to trial. The other 97% are settled out of court because people don't want to pay $50,000 or $500,000 or more. Yes, a trial can bring out truth, but few are prepared to spend their own money on the most expensive way of getting at the truth.

Neither Alberta Justice Minister Dave Hancock nor Edmonton's Mayor and Councillors are paying for this themselves. Instead, both are spending other people's money. There is no need to be humble or reasonable, as both sides can easily afford to dig in their heels, refusing to negotiate a settlement.

This trial illustrates the most inefficient way to spend money. Money can be spent in four different ways.

First, you can spend your own money on yourself. This is the most common kind of spending, practiced daily when people buy food, clothing, houses, cars, etc. When it's your own money and when you have to live with what is purchased, you think carefully and choose wisely.

Second, you can spend your own money on someone else, by donating to charity or buying someone a gift. You won't personally receive or enjoy what's been bought, but you will still spend your own money carefully.

Third, you can spend someone else's money on yourself. The company expense account is a classic example. You will buy yourself a good quality meal, but chances are you will care less about its price than if you were paying the bill yourself.

Fourth, you can spend someone else's money on someone else. This is what politicians and bureaucrats do every day. They don't experience direct or personal consequences when they spend others' money poorly, or enjoy immediate rewards for wise choices. Sure, there will be another election someday (which affects only politicians, not bureaucrats) but it's largely a personality contest in which issues play second fiddle. Unless a credible and effective opposition party stands ready to take power, incumbents will be easily re-elected no matter how many tax dollars have been wasted.

This trial continues because Edmonton City Council and Justice Minister Hancock have no incentive to stop spending other people's money on other people. This is how government works. And it provides yet another example of why we need less government.