Chinatown Revisited: Owens Valley and Los Angeles--Bargaining Costs and Fairness Perceptions of the First Major Water Rights Exchange

Libecap, Gary D.

doi:10.1093/jleo/ewn006

Cited by 35 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reallocation changes both the magnitude and distribution of costs and benefits among the donor region, recipient region, and the environment as water moves from rural uses to meet the needs of growing cities. Early experiences such as the Owens Valley transfer to Southern California led to the perception of a zerosum outcome (Libecap 2009): that increasing water security for cities comes at the expense of the donor region, which suffers from the lost water, jobs and productivity. This perception has fueled resistance and renegotiation, underscoring the role of compensation and benefit-sharing arrangements.…”

Section: Impacts and Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet data on the impacts of reallocation, both positive and negative, are sparse, and evidence about the performance of water reallocation is constrained. Perceptions and myths regarding reallocation have become entrenched (Libecap 2009), fueling resistance within the donor region and debates about the ownership of water, water use efficiency and the fairness of compensation approaches.…”

Section: Is Reallocation Effective and Equitable?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These trends are spurring competition between cities and agriculture for water (Bhatia et al 1995, Molle and Berkoff 2009, Florke et al 2018. The conflict between the city of Los Angeles and the Owens Valley in the early 20th century illustrates that this is not a new challenge (Libecap 2009), but a four-fold increase in urban populations since 1960 has created new flashpoints for rural-urban water conflicts globally (Molden 2007, Celio et al 2010, Scott and Pablos 2011, Punjabi and Johnson 2018. The water supply of approximately one-third of the world's surface-water dependent cities is already vulnerable due to competition with agricultural users, and this figure is expected to increase through 2040 as urban and agricultural demands continue to grow (Padowski and Gorelick 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Rural water for thirsty cities: a systematic review of water reallocation from rural to urban regions

Garrick

Stefano

Yu³

et al. 2019

Environ. Res. Lett.

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Competition for freshwater between cities and agriculture is projected to grow due to rapid urbanization, particularly in the Global South. Water reallocation from rural to urban regions has become a common strategy to meet freshwater needs in growing cities. Conceptual issues and associated measurement problems have impeded efforts to compare and learn from global experiences. This review examines the status and trends of water reallocation from rural to urban regions based on academic literature and policy documents.Methods: We conduct a systematic literature review to establish the global reallocation database (GRaD). This process yielded 97 published studies (academic and policy) on rural-to-urban reallocation. We introduce the concept of reallocation 'dyads' as the unit of analysis to describe the pair of a recipient (urban) and donor (rural) region. A coding framework was developed iteratively to classify the drivers, processes and outcomes of water reallocation from a political economy perspective.Results: The systematic review identified 69 urban agglomerations receiving water through 103 reallocation projects (dyads). Together these reallocation dyads involve approximately 16 billion m 3 of water per year moving almost 13 000 kilometres to urban recipient regions with an estimated 2015 population of 383 million. Documented water reallocation dyads are concentrated in North America and Asia with the latter constituting the majority of dyads implemented since 2000.Synthesis: The analysis illustrates how supply and demand interact to drive water reallocation projects, which can take many forms, although collective negotiation and administrative decisions are most prevalent. Yet it also reveals potential biases and gaps in coverage for parts of the Global South (particularly in South America and Africa), where reallocation (a) can involve informal processes that are difficult to track and (b) receives limited coverage by the English-language literature covered by the review. Data regarding the impacts on the donor region and compensation are also limited, constraining evidence to assess whether a water reallocation project is truly effective, equitable and sustainable. We identify frameworks and metrics for assessing reallocation projects and navigating the associated trade-offs by drawing on the concept of benefit sharing.

show abstract

Section: Impacts and Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Is Reallocation Effective and Equitable?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rural water for thirsty cities: a systematic review of water reallocation from rural to urban regions

Garrick

Stefano

Yu³

et al. 2019

Environ. Res. Lett.

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite this, long held perceptions of water as a public good can be very hard to change, irrespective of economic gains to parties involved. For instance, Libecap (2009) finds that the Owens Valley water rights sale to Los Angeles provided economic gains to both the city and the selling farmers; however, the bargaining process was contentious (at times violent) and is still often regarded as a "theft." In this light, we should note that many areas may be able to maintain a public ownership system for things like drinking water while turning to market-based regimes for agricultural and industrial use.…”

Section: Public Policy and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

An endogenous growth model for the evolution of water rights systems

Costa

2015

Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a model to help explain the transition path from one water management system to another, typically a commons framework to one of tradable permit-based property rights. Furthermore, drawing from transaction cost literature, the model demonstrates how this takes place when externalities (the strain on water resources) become severe enough to warrant the increased transaction costs inherent with more complex water rights management frameworks.JEL classifications: H410, K110, O110, O130, O423, Q15

show abstract

“…The outcome of administrative review includes approval, approval subject to modification, or denial, as well as provision of opportunities for appeal (Colby, 1995, 114 Colby (1990). 25 For examination of bargaining over pecuniary benefits of water transfers, see Libecap (2008).…”

Section: The "No Injury" Rule (Third Party Effects) Area Of Origin Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Rights and Markets in the U.S. Semi Arid West: Efficiency and Equity Issues

Libecap

2010

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chinatown Revisited: Owens Valley and Los Angeles--Bargaining Costs and Fairness Perceptions of the First Major Water Rights Exchange

Cited by 35 publications

References 12 publications

Rural water for thirsty cities: a systematic review of water reallocation from rural to urban regions

Rural water for thirsty cities: a systematic review of water reallocation from rural to urban regions

An endogenous growth model for the evolution of water rights systems

Water Rights and Markets in the U.S. Semi Arid West: Efficiency and Equity Issues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About