Economic Valuation of Resource Injuries in Natural Resource Liability Suits
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 126, Issue 6
Abstract
Several major federal environmental statutes enacted in the 1970s designate federal, state, and tribal resource management agencies as trustees of natural resources on behalf of the public and enable the trustees to recover damages for injuries to public resources. The measure of damages in the statutes is the cost of restoring the resources to baseline conditions, plus the interim loss in value from the time of the incident until full recovery of the resources. The statutory restriction limiting use of the monies to enhancing or creating natural resources motivated the development of an alternative measure for interim losses—the cost of compensatory restoration actions providing in-kind compensation. In this paper alternative measures of damages are outlined and approaches and methods for scaling compensatory restoration are discussed. Two basic scaling approaches are presented: a simplified in-kind trading procedure and the more general valuation approach, in which a variety of economic methods may be employed to assess the trade-offs between gains from proposed actions and interim losses from the injuries. Experience indicates that natural resource liability actions represent a potent tool for federal and state resource managers to address injuries to public resources.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Boxall, P. C., Adamowicz, W. L., Swait, J., Williams, M., and Louviere, J. ( 1996). “A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation.” Ecological Economics, 18(3), 243–253.
2.
Carson, R. T., et al. ( 1992). “A contingent valuation study of lost passive use values resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill.” Rep. to the Attorney General of the State of Alaska. Vols. 1 and 2, Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc., La Jolla, Calif.
3.
Dunford, R. (2000). “Estimating ground-water damages from hazardous-substance releases.”J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE, 126(6), 366–373.
4.
Environmental Law Institute (ELI). ( 1998). An analysis of state superfund programs: 50-state study, 1998 Update, Washington, D.C.
5.
Freeman, A. M. ( 1993). The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
6.
Gan, C., and Luzar, E. J. ( 1993). “A conjoint analysis of waterfowl hunting in Louisiana.” J. Agric. and Appl. Economics, 25(2), 36–45.
7.
Hanemann, W. M. ( 1997). “Final conclusions of Professor Michael Hanemann regarding lost recreational damage resulting from the American Trader oil spill.” Rep. Submitted to the State of California Attorney General's Office, Berkeley, Calif.
8.
Hensher, D. A. ( 1994). “Stated preference analysis of travel choices: The state of practice.” Transp., 21(2), 107–133.
9.
Jones, C. A. ( 1997). “Use of non-market valuation methods in the courtroom: Recent affirmative precedents in natural resource damage assessments.” Water Resour. Update, 109(Autumn), 10–18.
10.
Jones, C. A., and Pease, K. A. ( 1997). “Restoration-based measures of compensation in natural resource liability statutes.” Contemporary Economic Policy, XV(1), 111–122.
11.
Julius, B. E. ( 1997). “Natural resource damage assessment: U.S. vs. Melvin A. Fisher et al.” Report prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Md.
12.
Louviere, J. J. ( 1988). “Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preferences: A review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity.” J. Transport Economics and Policy, 22(1), 93–119.
13.
McConnell, K. ( 1986). “The damages to recreational activities from PCBs in New Bedford Harbor.” Dept. of Agric. Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, Md., and Industrial Economics, Inc., Cambridge, Mass.
14.
Matthews, K. E., Johnson, F. R., Dunford, R. W., and Desvousges, W. H. ( 1996). “The potential role of conjoint analysis in natural resource damage assessments.” TER Tech. Working Paper, Triangle Economic Research, Durham, N.C.
15.
Mazzotta, M., Opaluch, J. J., and Grigalunas, T. A. ( 1994). “Natural resource damage assessment: The role of resource restoration.” Natural Resour. J., 34(1), 153–178.
16.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ( 1995). “Natural resource damage assessment: M/V Miss Beholden Grounding Site Western Sambo Reef, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, March 13, 1993.” Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, Silver Spring, Md.
17.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ( 1996). “Habitat equivalency analysis.” Policy and Tech. Paper Ser. No. 95-1, (revised June 1996), Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, Silver Spring, Md.
18.
Shavell, S. ( 1987). Economic analysis of accident law, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
19.
Texas General Land Office et al. ( 1999). “Damage assessment and restoration plan and environmental assessment for the Point Comfort/Lavaca Bay NPL site recreational fishing service losses, public review draft, September 28, 1999,” Austin, Tex.
20.
Ward, K. M., and Duffield, J. W. ( 1992). Natural resource damages: Law & economics, Wiley, New York.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 126 • Issue 6 • December 2000
Pages: 358 - 365
History
Received: Jun 14, 2000
Published online: Dec 1, 2000
Published in print: Dec 2000
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.