My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD00757
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
FLOOD00757
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2009 10:51:15 AM
Creation date
10/4/2006 9:27:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Title
Incorporating the Public's Changing Values for Water: Economic Techniques and Dollar Amounts
Date
11/3/1997
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />However one of the fastest growing public demands for water has no market price. The value <br /> <br />that anglers and recreational boaters place on having water instream is not priced in any <br /> <br /> <br />market. Yet the rancorous fights over instream flow standards below hydroelectric facilities <br /> <br />suggests such flows do have a substantial economic value. The demands for water driven by <br /> <br />the Endangered Species Act is a reflection of broad public concern, not just that of <br /> <br />recreationists. To date, the debate has focused on minimum instream flow. The mindset of <br /> <br />arguing over minimum flows is indicative of the resistance to allow water to be allocated to <br /> <br />newly emerging high valued uses. Why not instead ask: what is the minimum electricity that <br /> <br />household needs'? Why don't we all live in the minimum size house and eat the minimum <br /> <br />size diet to sustain life'? This is what we are asking the fish to do. The standard we apply to <br /> <br />ourselves is one of optimum: balancing the benefits and costs of a larger house. Maximum <br /> <br />net benefits are attained by increasing flows until the value of another acre foot equals the <br /> <br />opportunity cost of foregone agriculture or hydropower. Why is the public so unsatisfied with <br /> <br />minimum instream flows'? They want, what makes economic sense:' optimum flows. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />HOW CAN THESE PUBUC NON-MARKET DEMANDS BE COMPARED TO COSTS'? <br /> <br />Because the public cannot directly purchase instream flow from dam operators or irrigators, <br /> <br />the economic value the public receives is less visible than the obvious market values of <br /> <br />hydropower or agricultural commodities. But economists have become excellent detectives at <br /> <br />translating the public demands into what the public would pay if they had the opportunity to <br /> <br />purchase instream flow. Knowing what the public would sacrifice in higher water bills, <br /> <br />electricity prices or higher taxes provides a much more useful indicator of public concern <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.