Economic efficiency and cost implications of habitat conservation: An example in the context of the Edwards Aquifer region

Abstract

[1] Groundwater management in the Edwards Aquifer in Texas is in the process of moving away from a traditional right of capture economic regime toward a more environmentally sensitive scheme designed to preserve endangered species habitats. This study explores economic and environmental implications of proposed groundwater management and water development strategies under a proposed regional Habitat Conservation Plan. Results show that enhancing the habitat by augmenting water flow costs $109-1427 per acre-foot and that regional water development would be accelerated by the more extreme possibilities under the Habitat Conservation Plan. The findings also indicate that a water market would improve regional welfare and lower water development but worsen environmental attributes.

Using Envision to Assess the Sustainability of Groundwater Infrastructure: A Case Study of the Twin Oaks Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project

“…This conservation of water comes from the lack of significant evaporation in the subsurface, which saves substantial amounts of water in Texas when compared to surface reservoir evaporation (see [50]). Nevertheless, water use from the Edwards Aquifer may be at the expense of surface water and spring flow [36]. Therefore, using any Edwards aquifer water makes it unavailable elsewhere.…”

“…Pumping of the Edwards Aquifer is controlled by the EAA which is required by Texas law to maintain specified spring discharge rates and groundwater levels in index wells [27]. The purpose of such monitoring is to preserve multiple endangered species [35] that rely on Edwards Aquifer spring flow for habitat [36]. Thus, the SAWS permitted withdrawals of 363 million cubic meters per year are reduced if water levels or spring flows cross critical thresholds and then increased again when water levels rise [25,28].…”

Lessons to Be Learned from Groundwater Trading in Australia and the United States

“…A recent analysis of proposed legislative changes has compared expected water flows and economic benefits with and without regulation and water markets. Results show that under regulation, flows are higher without water markets but that regulated water markets are necessary for habitat needs and that the economic loss due to regulation is reduced when trading is permitted (Gillig et al 2004;Boadu et al 2007). Results also show that unregulated groundwater use is expected to lead to insufficient water flow for endangered species.…”

“…An analysis of the potential changes due to the regulation in SB 1477 finds that without regulation, low water flow will significantly affect habitat for endangered species (Gillig et al 2004;Boadu et al 2007). A recent analysis of proposed legislative changes has compared expected water flows and economic benefits with and without regulation and water markets.…”

Optimization of environmental water purchases with uncertainty

“…Previous work has used deterministic optimization to examine the economic benefits of water markets in general [Brajer et al, 1989;Howe, 1997] and in California [Jenkins et al, 2004]. Two-stage linear programming has been used to maximize net economic benefits of water management plans and protection of endangered fish [Gillig et al, 2004] and to develop economically optimal market and conservation strategies for urban water supply [Lund and Israel, 1995a]. In addition, the Natural Heritage Institute sponsored a Monte Carlo model to optimize water purchases for the EWA [Electric Power Research Institute, 2002].…”