Date post: | 22-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | barrie-hampton |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and a Border Region: A Critical Analysis
Dr. James F. Booker
Siena College
New York, U.S.A.
Prepared for the International Society of Ecological Economics Biennial Conference,
Montreal July 11-14, 2004.
Outline
• Institutional background
• Physical setting
• Uncovering techniques to bias a cost-effectiveness analysis
• Cost-effectiveness applied effectively
Background
• U.S. obligation to deliver Colorado River flows to Mexico (Mexican Water Treaty of 1944).
• Obligation to count only decent quality water (Minute No. 242, 1973).
The U.S. strategy for meeting Minute 242:Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (1974)
• Construct “bypass” for agricultural drainage– accomplished quickly and still in operation– restored one part of the Colorado River Delta,
the Cienega de Santa Clara.
• Construct the Yuma Desalting Plant to desalt the drainage water– first operated in 1990 after 14 years of construction.– cost of $258 million– shut down almost immediately due to high costs and technical difficulties.
What’s Wrong with the Bypass?
• U.S. cannot receive credit for the water under the 1944 Treaty with Mexico.
• Desalting plant would produce water near the quality of Colorado River water for delivery to Mexico – thus allowing more water use in the U.S.
Current Context
• 4th year of severe drought in the Colorado River Basin
Lake Powell (Living Rivers)
Lake Mead (NASA Earth Observatory)
• 50% of basin storage depleted
How to manipulate cost-effectiveness analyses:
1. Use sunk costs to justify more costs.
2. Combine the ugly duckling and the swan.
3. Leave out relevant (though perhaps non-quantifiable) costs.