A rolicy Analysis of the Collaborative Upper Colorado River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Program: Cost Savings or Cost Shifting?

摘要

This case study evaluates potential benefits to water users and taxpayers from voluntary collaboration versus the "business as usual" regulatory approach to Endangered Species Act (ESA) implementation. It examines whether cooperative efforts between stakeholders work by shifting costs to taxpayers or result in real cost savings to society. The analysis suggests that voluntary collaboration provide significant cost savings to the cooperating water users, taxpayers, and those who receive benefits from species protection. Savings are demonstrated in multiple ways. First, irrigation and water districts in the Upper Colorado River Basin saved $657 million in water costs through a cooperative recovery program for ESA compliance. These cost savings get passed on to end water users such as farmers, industries, rural and urban water users. Second, there have been no lawsuits associated with the Recovery Program allowing both private and public stakeholders to spend their money on species recovery efforts, instead of litigation. Third, a broader range of recovery efforts have been employed than would be possible with the Fish and Wildlife Service's traditional regulatory mechanisms. Even if this increases the likelihood of endangered species recovery by 10 percent more than "business as usual" the benefits to society would effectively be tens of millions of dollars more than without collaboration. Over the last ten years, the sum of the net cost savings to society from the collaborative Recovery Program is estimated at over $300 million.