Premium
MANAGING THE COLORADO RIVER IN A SEVERE SUSTAINED DROUGHT AN EVALUATION OF INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS 1
Author(s) -
Lord William B.,
Booker James F,
Getches David M.,
Harding Benjamin L.,
Kenney Douglas S.,
Young Robert A.
Publication year - 1995
Publication title -
jawra journal of the american water resources association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.957
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1752-1688
pISSN - 1093-474X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1995.tb03412.x
Subject(s) - damages , economic shortage , water scarcity , business , government (linguistics) , natural resource economics , structural basin , drainage basin , water trading , value (mathematics) , water conservation , environmental resource management , water resources , environmental planning , water resource management , environmental science , economics , geography , political science , computer science , law , ecology , linguistics , philosophy , paleontology , cartography , machine learning , biology
This paper presents a summary of the findings and recommendations of the studies of severe, sustained drought reported in this special issue. The management facilities and institutions were found to be effective in protecting consumptive water users against drought, but much less effective in protecting nonconsumptive uses. Changes in intrastate water management were found to be effective in reducing the monetary value of damages, through reallocating shortages to low‐valued uses, while only water banking and water marketing, among the possible interstate rule changes, were similarly effective. Players representing the basin states and the federal government in three gaming experiments were unable to agree upon and effect major changes in operating rules. The conclusions are (1) that nonconsumptive water uses are highly vulnerable to drought, (2) that consumptive uses are well‐protected, (3) that drought risk is greatest in the Upper Basin, (4) that the Lower Basin suffers from chronic water shortage but bears little drought risk, (5) that opportunities exist for win‐win rule changes, (6) that such rule changes are extremely difficult to make, and (7) that intrastate drought management is very effective m in reducing potential damages.