Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis
description
Transcript of Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis
![Page 1: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Loomis & Ballweber’s A Policy Analysis of the Collaborative Upper Colorado River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Program: Cost Savings or Cost Shifting?
Discussant, Danielle V. DolanThursday, May 22, 2014ESP 212b – Spring 2014
UC Davis
![Page 2: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
John Loomis & Jeffery Ballweber
• 2000, Vice President, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists
• 2004, Western Ag. Economics Assoc. Distinguished Scholar Award
• 3 books • 234 scientific journal articles
• Pickering Firm, Inc.• Mississippi Water Resources
Association• Mississippi Water Resources
Institute • University of Oregon School of
Law
![Page 3: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
L&B analyze a collaborative approach to implementing the ESA.
![Page 4: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
L&B seek to find if the Recovery Program resulted in actual net social benefit (cost savings), or simply cost-shifting from water users to tax payers.
$costs ?
![Page 6: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
L&B raise important questions re:• who pays for environmental
damages? • env. policies to address neg.
externalities?
![Page 7: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
L&B use traditional BCA methods to calculate direct costs, indirect costs, and cost savings from the collaborative project.
![Page 8: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Focus QuestionsCost-effectiveness “net social benefit to society”Assumed Management Objective: H20 Managers
provide water supply to water rights holders at a reasonable cost to enable further economic development
Assumed Management Objective: ESA
to preserve species habitat and support species recovery
Key Constrain ESA n-stream flow-requirements
Spatial Scale Upper CO River watershed (get the acreage
Management Choice
Collaborative project/ programmatic management/ stakeholders, vs. individual s 7 Consultation (alternative habitat protections vs. direct cubic-acre for acre water replacement.
Continuous or Discrete Management?
Continuous, for the programmatic approval period (through…)
![Page 9: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
The ESA attempts to mitigate a market failure through non-market “command & control” regulation.
Evaluation criteria
Direct costs Costs savings Lost opportunity
costs Species valuation
[meta-analysis]
Negative Externalities
Water as a common-pool resource Restricted access
(excludability) Appropriative water
rights (rivalry) Biodiversity as a pure
public good
![Page 10: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
The collaborative project provides market-based flexibility and economies of scale for more thorough & cost-effective compliance.
Phase Elementhabitat management instream flows for fish recoveryhabitat development and maintenance
structural activities (eg., fish ladders)non-structural activities (eg., floodplain restoration)
supplement & reestablish population
fish hatcheries construction, stocking restored habitats
Nonative species control
Sportfishing to remove predators
research, monitoring and data management
Track effectiveness in meeting species recovery goals & support adaptive management.
![Page 11: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
"The direct costs of the Recovery Program's multipronged approach have been substantial."
![Page 12: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
"The success of the consensus based multi-stakeholder … Program provides a model for other similar ESA conflicts that pit endangered species protection against development activities.".
![Page 13: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
"It is extremely difficult to track or allocate the true cost of ESA litigation for federal, state and local governments and agencies or the private sector."
![Page 14: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
L&B do a particularly good job identifying potential costs, cost savings, & cost distribution.
![Page 15: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
L&B fail to define “society as a whole;” distribution of net benefit is thus unclear.
![Page 16: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
L&B fail to account for potential lost benefits from collaboration (benefits of BaU).
$$$$$
$
![Page 17: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
A follow-up evaluation of success post-implementation would reveal actualized costs & benefits.
![Page 18: Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815faf550346895dcea863/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Including social science scholars with expertise in collaborative governance and decision-making processes would enhance the analysis.