An economic assessment of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan

Natural Resources Journal

Volumn 46, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 709-725

  Bark Hodgins, Rosalind ^a   Colby, Bonnie G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ENVIRONMENTAL TAX; HABITAT CORRIDOR; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; RIPARIAN ZONE;

ARIZONA; NORTH AMERICA; PIMA COUNTY; SONORAN DESERT; UNITED STATES;

AVES; PIMA;

EID: 34248646542     PISSN: 00280739     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. An acre foot of water can support an average 2.7 single-family residence (SFR) household for a year. This is based on the following data: average gallons per capita per day (GPCD) for an SFR is 120 GPCD, CITY OF TUCSON WATER DEP'T, WATER PLAN: 2000-2050: FINAL DRAFT MAYOR AND COUNCIL 3-6 (Nov. 22, 2004), available at http:// www.ci.tucson.az.us/water/docs/waterplan.pdf,
2. and 2.8 persons per SFR, SHARON B. MEGDAL & KELLY MOTT LACROIX, WATER RESOURCE AVAILABILITY FOR THE TUCSON METROPOLITAN AREA 20 n.21 (July 2006), available at http://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/ presentations/Megdal.az.water.resource.avail.for.tucson.pdf.
3. Ariz. State Univ., Investing in Arizona's Future, http:// www.asu.edu/president/azfuture/1.htm (last visited May 20, 2006).
4. City of Tucson, Tucson Water [Dep't], Long Range Water Resource Planning, http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/water/docs/groundwater.pdf (last visited May 20, 2006).
5. Bounder Canyon Project Act (1928), Pub. L. 70-642 § 4(a).
6. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 45-101 to 45-2712 (2003 & Supp. 2005).
7. See Robert J. Naiman et al., The Role of Riparian Corridors in Maintaining Regional Biodiversity, 3 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 209, 209-10 (1993).
8. Juliet C. Stromberg, Restoration of Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern United States: Importance of Flow Regimes and Fluvial Dynamism, 49 J. ARID ENV'TS 17, 17-29 (2001).
9. Jonathan L. Horton et al., Physiological Response to Groundwater Depth Varies Among Species and with River Flow Regulation, 11 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 1046, 1058 (2001).
10. C.M. Levine & J.C. Stromberg, Effects of Flooding on Native and Exotic Plant Seedlings: Implications for Restoring Southwestern Riparian Forests by Manipulating Water and Sediment Flows, 49 J. ARID ENV'TS 111, 111-29 (2001).
11. Francisco Zamora-Arroyo et al., Regeneration of Native Trees in Response to Flood Releases from the United States into the Delta of the Colorado River, Mexico, 49 J. ARID ENV'TS 49, 49-64 (2001).
12. In this article we define "riparian habitat" as hydroriparian habitat. That is, we only value the benefits to homeowners of shallow groundwater-dependent habitat. Tree species in this type are broad-leafed, deciduous, cottonwoods, and willow trees.
13. The hedonic property price method is based on Rosen's seminal article. Sherwin Rosen, Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition, 82 J. POL. ECON. 34, 34-54, (1974).
14. See, e.g., Elena G. Irwin & Nancy E. Bockstael, The Problem of Identifying Land Use Spillovers: Measuring the Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values, 83 AM. J. AGRIC. ECON. 698 (2001);
15. Jacqueline Geoghegan, The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use, 19 LAND USE POL'Y 91 (2002);
16. V. Kerry Smith et al., Treating Open Space as an Urban Amenity, 24 RESOURCE & ENERGY ECON. 107 (2002);
17. Gayatri Acharya & Lynne Lewis Bennett, Valuing Open Space and Land-Use Patterns in Urban Watersheds, 22 J. REAL EST. FIN. & ECON. 221 (2001);
18. Steven D. Shultz & David A. King, The Use of Census Data for Hedonic Price Estimates of Open-space Amenities and Land Use, 22 J. REAL EST. FIN. & ECON. 239 (2001);
19. Fiorenza Spalatro & Bill Provencher, An Analysis of Minimum Frontage Zoning to Preserve Lakefront Amenities, 77 LAND ECON. 469 (2001);
20. Robert W. Paterson & Kevin J. Boyle, Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Using GIS to Incorporate Visibility in Hedonic Property Value Models, 78 LAND ECON. 417 (2002);
21. Earl D. Benson et al., Pricing Residential Amenities: The Value of a View, 16 J. REAL EST. FIN. & ECON. 55 (1998);
22. Brent L. Mahan et al., Valuing Urban Wetlands: A Property Price Approach, 76 LAND ECON. 100 (2000);
23. Christopher G. Leggett & Nancy E. Bockstael, Evidence of the Effects of Water Quality on Residential Land Prices, 39 J. ENVTL. ECON. & MGMT. 121 (2000);
24. Jacqueline Geoghegan et al., Spatial Landscape Indices in a Hedonic Framework: An Ecological Economics Analysis Using GIS, 23 ECOLOGICAL ECON. 251 (1997).
25. N.R. Netusil, The Effect of Environmental Zoning and Amenities on Property Values: Portland, Oregon, 81 LAND ECON. 227, 242 (2005) (homes within 200 feet of a river enjoy a large premium in Portland, Oregon);
26. Rosalind H. Bark-Hodgins et al., (forthcoming 2006) (premiums found in the semi-arid market of Tucson, Arizona);
27. Rosalind Bark-Hodgins, Daniel E. Osgood & Bonnie G. Colby., Remotely Sensed Proxies for Environmental Amenities in Hedonic Analysis: What Does Green Mean?, in ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION: INTERREGIONAL AND INTRAREGIONAL PERSPECTIVES (John I. Carruthers & Bill Mundy eds., 2006) [hereinafter Bark-Hodgins et al., Hedonic Analysis].
28. See R.H. Bark-Hodgins et al., Understanding Preferences for Environmental Characteristics: Can Homebuyers Distinguish Between Degraded Greenspace and Healthy Habitat (2006) (unpublished manuscript, on file with author) [hereinafter Bark-Hodgins et al., Homebuyers].
29. 26 ε. The hedonic price of one unit of hydro-mesoriparian richness was calculated at $16,252.
30. Horton et al., supra note 8, at 1056.
31. Levine & Stromberg, supra note 9, at 113.
32. Bark-Hodgins et al., Homebuyers, supra note 15, tbl. 4.
33. Tucson is located in Pima County.
34. See supra note 11.
35. Bark-Hodgins et al., Homebuyers, supra note 15.
36. Id.
37. This privacy results from flood control legislation that prevents building in the floodway. PIMA COUNTY, ARIZ., CODE ch. 16.24, § 16.24.010 (1998) (Uses allowed in the floodway).
38. Bark-Hodgins et al., Homebuyers, supra note 15.
39. In the paper, the hydro-mesoriparian richness variable varied from 1 to 4 at the five sites with this type of habitat. For this current analysis, we apply the premium associated with a hydro-mesoriparian richness value of 2 to all of the homes within the 0.2 mile buffer.
40. We transfer the premium to all the homes within the buffers, not only to those homes that sold within the author's study period.
41. Bonnie G. Colby & Steve Wishart, Quantifying the Influence of Desert Riparian Areas on Residential Property Values, 70 APPRAISAL J. 304, 304-08 (2002).
42. See supra note 26.
43. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, A Vision for Riparian Protection, http://www.co.pima.az.us/cmo/sdcp/Riparian.html (last visited May 20, 2006).
44. We treat "important riparian habitat" as "hydro and mesoriparian habitat."
45. Bark-Hodgins et al., Homebuyers, supra note 15.
46. This estimate is based on the doubling of hydro-mesoriparian species richness from 2 to 4. See also supra note 27.
47. We assume a straight proportion increase in the number of homes benefiting from the extended habitat. This results in an additional 973 homes (25 percent of the 3,893 homes located in the buffers) for a total of 4,866 homes in this scenario.
48. See supra note 33.
49. Zamora-Arroyo et al., supra note 10, at 61;
50. Levine & Stromberg, supra note 9, at 124.
51. Memorandum Re Mitigation Costs Update to Suzanne Shields, Deputy Director, Pima County Flood Control District, from Thomas Helfrich, Division Manager, Pima County Flood Control District (Apr. 28, 2003) (costs are based on previous projects in southern Arizona completed over the last ten years).
52. We estimate the restoration costs in our smaller study area as a straight proportion of total acreage. This somewhat arbitrary assumption is that the proportion of total costs that would be spent in our study area is based on the proportion of riparian habitat in our smaller area compared to the total area. There are 2,912 acres of shallow groundwater-dependent riparian habitat in our study area (31% of the total SDCP regulated 9,432 riparian acres).
53. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, supra note 30.
54. Pima County Regional Flood Control Dist., Paseo de las Eglesias: Habitat Explanations, http://www.rfcd.pima.gov/Envrest/PDLIapproaches.htm (last visited May 20, 2006).
55. Id. This plan incorporates irrigation for the initial establishment of dry (xeroriparian) habitat of mesquite and palo verde shrubland and Sonoran desertscrub species. Intermittent water-dependent (mesoriparian) habitat restoration would restore mesquite-hackberry bosques merging with dry riparian species. This plan requires the installation of a permanent irrigation system. Finally, shallow groundwater-dependent (hydroriparian) habitat restoration would restore cottonwood-willow galleries bordered by the mesoriparian habitat described above. The plan would require instream flows for restoration.
56. See supra note 38 (the calculation: 31% of $1.74M = $0.54M).
57. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Pima County Relating to Water; Authorizing and Approving the Execution of a Supplemental Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Tucson and Pima County Flood Control District Regarding Effluent. Pima County Resolution No. 2000-28 § 5.2.2.1 (2000).
58. Id. §§ 6.5,12.3.
59. Noelwah R. Netusil et al., Can Open Spaces Be Self-Financing?, CHOICES: THE MAGAZINE OF FOOD, FARM & RESOURCE ISSUES, 2d Quarter 2000, at 21.
60. Public good benefits include flood control and water infiltration into the regional aquifer as well as benefits to recreationists and to habitat.
61. In the 2006 tax year, property tax rates in the study area averaged 14.5 percent. Telephone Interview with Peggy, Budget Analyst, Finance Department, Pima County, Ariz. (Nov. 7. 2006). The tax rate is per $100 assessed value. Tucson Unified School District: 15.3235 percent; Tanque Verde School District: 13.4181 percent;. Catalina Hills School District: 14.6806 percent. We also assume that the property tax rate remains unchanged over the period of the riparian restoration.
62. This percentage is based on the average (and median) assessed value calculated as a proportion of actual sales price of 2,265 homes sold in 2003 in the study area.
63. This calculation is illustrated here in three stages: $189.81M × 0.66 = $125.27M; $125.27M × 0.1 = $12.53M. $12.53M × 0.145 = $1.82M.
64. These property tax revenues are neither currently spent on, nor are they likely to be spent directly on, riparian habitat conservation and enhancement. However, this does not invalidate the comparison of benefits and costs.
65. The most common and most economical method of artificial recharge is surface infiltration via dry streambeds. Central Arizona Project, http:// www.cap-az.com//recharge/index.cfm?action=What&subSection=70 (last visited June 8, 2006). Thus, we believe Pima County might be able to receive groundwater credits from measurable recharge, which, in turn, would reduce the costs of the program. Recharge might also reduce land subsidence risks and, therefore, potential damage claims.
66. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, supra note 30.
67. Nadine M. Amlin & Stewart B. Rood, Comparative Tolerances of Riparian Willows and Cottonwoods to Water-table Decline, 22 WETLANDS 338, 338-46 (2002).
68. S.J. Lite & J.C. Stromberg, Surface Water and Ground-water Thresholds for Maintaining Populus-Salix Forests, San Pedro River, Arizona, 125 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 153, 153-67 (2005).
69. J.C. Stromberg et al., Effects of Groundwater Decline on Riparian Vegetation of Semiarid Regions: he San Pedro, Arizona, 6 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 113, 113-31 (1996).
70. Colby & Wishart, supra note 28.
71. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 45-598(A) (2003) (Current well-spacing rules are intended to "prevent unreasonably increasing damage to surrounding land or other water users from the concentration of wells.").
72. Id.
73. Pima, Ariz., Code § 16.30 (2005) (This change in the law tripled the size of the riparian buffer that homebuilders and homeowners must protect when developing more than one-third of an acre. Additionally, the new law expanded the acreage protected in unincorporated areas of the county from 26,251 acres to 87,273 acres. Within the regulated areas, developers must replace each old tree removed or protect land elsewhere. A key aim of the new law is to mitigate flood damage through conservation of riparian vegetation within regulated areas. Landowners must replace vegetation volume removed or protect land elsewhere.).
74. Pima County Flood Control Dist., Floodprone Land Acquisition Program, http://rfcd.pima.gov/landacq/ (last visited June 8, 2006).
75. Pima, Ariz., Code § 16.24 (2005).
76. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 45-141 to 45-166 (2003).
77. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, Surface Water Rights, Public Water Code, http://www.azwater.gov/WaterManagement_2005/Content/WaterRights/ default.htm (last visited June 9, 2006).
78. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 45-151(A) (2003) (emphasis added).
79. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, Surface Water: Answers to Frequently Asked Question, 5. What types of surface water right filings are made with the Arizona Department of Water Resources to appropriate or claim water rights?, http://www.azwater.gov/WaterManagement_2005/Content/ WaterRights/surface_water_faqs.htm#05dot2 (last visited June 9, 2006).
80. Colorado River Compact art. I, 70 Cong. Rec. 324 (1928) (allowing the river to be managed for "the protection of life and property from floods").
81. Joe Gelt, Managing the Flow to Better Use, Preserve Arizona's Rivers, http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/arroyo/064rvtxt.html (last visited June 10, 2006).