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 />Expressing public preferences in economic terms has been helpful in settling public trust <br /> <br />issues as well. Most states recognize the public trust in fish and wildlife: the animals are not <br /> <br />the property of the landowner but of the state. The state regulates the taking of these <br /> <br />animals. Several states recognize public trust uses of water as well. Perhaps the most well <br /> <br />known public trust water case was Mono Lake in California. Here the California Supreme <br /> <br />Court ruled that the State must balance its authority to grant water rights with its <br /> <br />responsibility to protect the public trust uses of Mono Lake. An economic approach to this <br /> <br />balancing suggests reallocating water from one use (Los Angeles) to the Mono Lake <br /> <br />ecosystem until the value of the last acre foot is equalized between the two uses. While water <br /> <br />to Los Angeles has a market price, the value of the water to support birds and recreation at <br /> <br />Mono Lake did not. As described below, surveys were used to measure what California <br /> <br />citizens would pay to have the water in Mono Lake. Rather than being unproductively <br /> <br />viewed as an all or nothing trade-off, incremental adjustments in water use can be made with <br /> <br />this information on relative values of water in the two uses. <br /> <br />As similar situation arises in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's legal requirement <br /> <br /> <br />in the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986 to give equal consideration <br /> <br /> <br />to environmental and power considerations in re1icensing of hydroelectric dams. If fisheries <br /> <br /> <br />biologists and anglers are asked their preferences, the resulting flows are the maximum <br /> <br /> <br />needed by fish. Just as minimum flows are likely not optimum (Le., benefits of additional <br /> <br /> <br />flows outweigh the costs), neither are maximum flows optimal (Le., benefits of added flows <br /> <br /> <br />are less than costs). One interpretation of equal consideration is a balancing of the <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.