Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I,. <br />i "j <br />,.t._ <br />q <br />-!!,:,.,) <br /> <br />-:'J <br />,'j <br />.':.j <br /> <br />The Economic Setting <br /> <br />< -~ <br />-, <br />.'-, <br /> <br />and related resources to their benefit. Those who believe they have been <br />injured by the allocation of resources to others, or by the actions of those who <br />have been allocated the resources, seek redress through the courts. Many <br />groups seek to increase their share of resources through marketing <br />campaigns aimed at swaying public opinion, and some invest in scientific <br />research believing that the results will buttress their demands. <br /> <br />'J <br /> <br />With no single clearinghouse for expressing and responding to all the <br />competing demands for water and related resources, there is no single <br />method for measuring their absolute and relative strength. Some groups <br />emphasize the economic values of allocating resources to a particular use, <br />while others enumerate the impacts on jobs, incomes, and communities. <br />Most express the opinion that allocating resources to their respective causes <br />is the right thing to do, and anything else is unfair. In such a setting, <br />employing any single method to describe the competition, such as looking <br />solely at water withdrawals, necessarily will favor some groups over others <br />and, if actually used to allocate resources, elicit outrage from those who are <br />disadvantaged. <br /> <br />'.'., <br />~.':-: <br /> <br />,..."! <br />..':1 <br /> <br />ii <br />~J <br /> <br /><..I <br /><. <br /> <br />:,:,; <br /> <br />Given the diverse mechanisms groups use to compete for water and related <br />resources, and the absence of a comprehensive method for measuring <br />competition, one has no choice when describing the competition but to take <br />an eclectic approach, using whatever information is relevant for describing <br />the specific demands represented by each of the four boxes in Figure 2.1 and <br />trying to reconcile the findings. In general" different groups express their <br />demands by focusing on three types of competitive arguments: (1) economic <br />values; (2) economic impacts; and (3) perceptions offairness. <br /> <br />;", <br /> <br />~:. <br />" <br />f, <br /> <br />One way to measure the relative strength of the competing demands for <br />water and related resources is to compare the economic values society <br />ascribes to the different bundles of goods and services derived under <br />alternative resource-management programs. In general, the value an <br />individual places on a specific use is the amount she is willing to pay for it, if <br />she does not already possess the right to use the resource in this manner, or, <br />if she does possess this right, the amount she is willing to accept to <br />relinquish the right and forgo this use. <br /> <br />Much of the public's concern over the management of water and related <br />resources is associated with how different management alternatives affect <br />the economic opportunities available to workers, families, and investors, and <br /> <br />c< 2924 <br /> <br />43 <br />