Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Footnotes <br /> <br />w::.. <br />~ <br />N <br />W <br /> <br />1. Ma i nstream economists have generally preferred incentive approaches <br />(taxes, marketable effluent permits) rather than direct regulation of <br />poll ut10n d1scharges (Bohm and Russell>. Kelman, however argues that <br />pollut10n d1scharges should be stigmatized and made 1llegal, wh1le Etzioni <br />c,ontends that many 1ncent1ve-based strategies are extremely d1ff1cult to <br />administer 1n practice. Gr1ff1n and Bromley focus on the particular <br />1ssues aris1ng from nonp01nt pollut10n, wh1le Park and Shabman emphasize <br />the dHf1culties 1n obta1n1ng general acceptance of nonp01nt controls <br />because of distributive 1mp11cations of such strategies. <br />2. We est1mated annual Lower Bas1n benefits (damages avoided) at about $26 <br />per ton of reduced salt discharge, 85~ of which 1s for mun1cipal users and <br /> <br />the balance for agr1culture. Limited research resources prevented a re- <br /> <br />evaluat10n of the municipal industrial damage estimates. Relatively <br />l1ttle effort has been allocated to corroborat1ng cla1ms of municipal <br />benef1t streams whose present value is 1n the mult1-bil110n dollar range <br />and we would not be surpr1sed 1f a basis for revision also ex1sts for <br />mun1c1pal damage est1mates. <br />3. Cons1derable debate has surrounded the potential impacts of changing <br />1rr1gat10n pract1ces on water quality 1n upper Bas1n aqu1fers and 1n the <br />Colorado R1ver, the mechan1sm of salt p1ckup 1n the upper basin <br />(part1cularly the proport10ns of man-made versus natural sources), and the <br />effect1veness of salt-load1ng abatement programs in 1mprov1ng downriver <br />water qual ity. The approach here is based on generally accepted <br /> <br />assumpt10ns on the relevant points, although our own re-evaluations are <br /> <br />22 <br />