Laserfiche WebLink
Table I-7-1. Direct Impacts for the Colorado River Basin <br /> (Critical Habitat Only) <br /> (1982 $ Millions) <br /> Year <br />Sector 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 <br />Livestock Feed -0.318 -0.777 -1.542 -1.871 -2.535 -3.317 <br />Other Crops 0.551 1.558 3.724 5.041 7.440 9.887 <br />Recreation -0.143 -0.372 -0.409 0.435 -0.461 -0.487 <br />Electric Power -0.388 -0.412 -0.859 -0.490 -1.015 -0.046 <br />Non-petroleum Mining 0.236 0.339 0.478 0.369 0.594 0.390 <br />Oil and Gas Mining 0.158 0.115 0.364 0.263 0.847 0.176 <br />Construction 0.623 0.635 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 <br />Combined Mfg. 0.623 0.635 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 <br />Total Direct Impacts 1.342 1.721 3.090 4.211 6.204 7.937 <br />Assumption 3 is also violated for the Colorado River Basin region since there is considerable <br />movement of goods across the boundaries of this region. Thus, it is likely that the impacts <br />reported in Table I-7-1 spill over regional boundaries and affect the economy elsewhere. <br />Although the region comprised of the seven States within the Colorado River Basin represents <br />a very extensive economy, there are considerable flows of goods and services between this <br />region and the rest of the U.S. (as well as the rest of the world). What is needed is a <br />framework that captures the net effects of adjustments in consumer and producer surplus. <br />Thus, the need for a more general framework than that discussed above is needed. This <br />framework is provided by a CGE model. <br />B. A Computable General Equilibrium Framework <br />The economic consequences of the proposed critical habitat designation can be evaluated from <br />the perspective of national efficiency impacts in such a manner that the above assumptions <br />are violated to a minimum degree. A CGE analysis captures the interactions across the <br />various sectors that make up the economy and takes explicit account of the exchanges <br />I-41 <br />