Laserfiche WebLink
<br />TABLES <br />Direct and Indirect Impacts by Economic-Sector: <br />Critical Habitat - Colorado River Study <br /> <br />Sector <br /> <br />Output Impacts <br />(NPV 3%) <br />(1991 $ Millions) <br />-1.898 <br />62.755 <br />-66.913 <br />3.853 <br />19.360 <br />5.766 <br />43.963 <br />-0.245 <br />5.102 <br />-16.760 <br />52.088 <br />-8.505 <br />-16.506 <br />- 113.447 <br />1.819 <br />7.659 <br />13.984 <br />136.538 <br />0.617 <br />0.1 73 <br /> <br />Livestock <br />Other Crops <br />Livestock Feed <br />Miscellaneous Agriculture <br />Non-petrol Mining <br />Petroleum & Natural Gas <br />Construction <br />Food Products <br />Wood Products <br />Petroleum & Coal Products <br />Other Manufacturing <br />Trans., Comm., & Uti!. <br />Recreation Services <br />Electric Power Products <br />Wholesale & Retail <br />Fire <br />Hhold & Business Svcs. <br />Local Amusements <br />Health, Ed., & Soc. Svcs. <br />Government Production <br /> <br />Table 6 presents the direct and indirect sub-regional and regional impacts for the Colorado study. <br />This gives an additional perspective on the distributional consequences of the resource <br />reallocation. For the Upper Basin states, the total output change is negative. However, for the <br />Lower Basin states the change is negative for Arizona but positive for Nevada and California. <br />Although regional impacts are positive, impacts differ considerably across the different states <br /> <br />32 <br />