Role of Economic Analysis in Columbia River Salmon Decisions
By Daniel D. Huppert
abstract
The Columbia river basin fish and wildlife program is funded mainly through the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), a Federal agency that markets and distributes electrical power generated by Federal dams. BPA has been spending around $140 million/yr. on fish and wildlife, with emphasis split between hatchery production and protection and restoration of depleted native salmon populations. In addition to the direct spending, even larger amounts have been expended as opportunity costs of foregone power. Economic analysis has made a rather small contribution to the allocation of these substantial resources. In this paper I argue that the reasons for this are:
- Vastly different visions of humanity's obligation to "nature" are reflected in differing values for salmon, and these have hardened into conflicting policy positions;
- The Endangered Species Act and the Northwest Electrical Power Planning Act provide little role for the balancing of costs and benefits in making decisions;
- Scientific research on the effectiveness of salmon enhancement measures is often ambiguous, with differing versions of the science supported by different interests groups;
- Major players in the decision process, such as American Indians, cannot make reasonable trades among salmon and other goods due to limitations inherent in definition of property rights and treaty rights.
Based upon the recent history of economics research in the river basin, I will argue that for economics analysis to play a significant role in salmon decisions would require a significant re-framing of legal interpretations and of procedures for reconciling competing interests.
 View Biological, Environmental, and Social Processes Session
|
