Incorporating Instream Flow Values into a Water Market

We use laboratory experiments to test three different water market institutions designed to incorporate instream flow values into the allocation. The institutions are (1) a baseline with fixed minimum flow constraints, (2) an environmental agent contributing to the cost of providing instream flows, and (3) creating an instream flow right in which an environmental agent can sell the right to reduced flows. Using a "smart" computer-coordinated market, we find that direct environmental participation in the market can achieve highly efficient and stable allocations. A particularly attractive and practical feature of the third institution is that it nests the status quo in the sense that, should the environmental agent choose not to participate in the market, the default minimum instream flow constraints will be maintained. Although flows may be lower in this institution relative to a fixed constraint on minimum flows, because these flow reductions are voluntary and compensated, all deviations from the status quo (i.e., binding flow constraints) are necessarily Pareto improving in the sense that no agent, including the environment, is made worse off.

[1]  R. Adams,et al.  Water banks and environmental water demands: Case of the Klamath Project , 2004 .

[2]  Stephen J. Rassenti,et al.  Designing a Uniform-Price Double Auction: An Experimental Evaluation , 1993 .

[3]  The Problem of Instream Flows , 1986 .

[4]  Stephen J. Rassenti,et al.  Designing `smart' computer-assisted markets : An experimental auction for gas networks , 1989 .

[5]  S. Rassenti,et al.  Smart Computer-Assisted Markets , 1991, Science.

[6]  Shih-Hsun Hsu,et al.  The Potential for Water Market Efficiency When Instream Flows Have Value , 1993 .

[7]  J. Ledyard Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research , 1994 .

[8]  Ariel Dinar,et al.  The Design of ``Smart'' Water Market Institutions Using Laboratory Experiments , 2000 .

[9]  Terry Lee Anderson,et al.  Water rights : scarce resource allocation, bureaucracy, and the environment , 1983 .

[10]  J. Kagel,et al.  Handbook of Experimental Economics , 1997 .

[11]  Benjamin M. Simon Federal Acquisition of Water through Voluntary Transactions for Environmental Purposes , 1998 .

[12]  Vernon L. Smith,et al.  Competitive Market Institutions: Double Auctions vs. Sealed Bid-Offer Auctions , 1982 .

[13]  Richard E. Howitt,et al.  Managing Water Scarcity: An Evaluation of Interregional Transfers , 1984 .

[14]  T. A. Miller,et al.  A framework for analyzing the impact of western instream water rights on choice domains: Transferability, externalities, and consumptive use , 1986 .

[15]  Terry H. Anderson,et al.  Water Markets : Priming the Invisible Pump , 1997 .

[16]  Dennis R. Schurmeier,et al.  Innovative Approaches to Water Allocation: The Potential for Water Markets , 1986 .

[17]  V. Smith Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science , 1982 .

[18]  Development of Water Markets Using Experimental Economics , 1998 .

[19]  B. Colby Enhancing instream flow benefits in an era of water marketing , 1990 .

[20]  Marian Weber,et al.  Markets for Water Rights under Environmental Constraints , 2001 .