SalmonEric Daviau –Econ 4545, Spring 99 1 The Columbia River is approximately 1,214 miles long and is the 18th largest river in the world. In fact, it carries as much as 10 times the water of the Colorado River and 2.5 times that of the Nile. It feeds up to 7 million acres of irrigated land, as well as providing hydroelectric power and valuable transportation/trade for the pacific northwestern states. At what cost to society? The Chinook salmon of the Columbia is an indicator of the continuous problems associated with common property issues. The Columbia River has been in dispute since its discovery. The federal government, individual states and Native American tribes have fought for their stake in the river, and thus have created a very functional and industrial river. With this industrializing, the river has lost the complexity and bio-diversity that at one time created enormous 100 lb. Salmon and staggering population density. In fact, Lewis and Clark (the first white explorers of the region) remarked “The multitudes of this fish are almost inconceivable", and “The water is so clearthat they (salmon) can be readily seen at the depth of 15 or 20 feet; but at this season they float in such quantities down the stream, and are drifted ashore, that the Indians have only to collect, split, and dry them on the scaffolds.” This is very different from the current, almost endangered, state of salmon in the Columbia. As environmental economists, we must ask if this reduction of salmon is a result of some market failure, thus suggesting inefficiency, or is the elimination of the salmon species a forgone conclusion to the efficientuse of the river. In order to gain a full perspective of the situation it is necessary to employ a cost-benefit analysis of preservation of salmon. This includes the concepts and practices used 1 Eric Daviau 1999in class to estimate use values of the fish as well as passive/non-use values of simply knowing that the fish are there. As discussed, use values are the benefits one gets from participation with the subject at hand. In the case of salmon, the use values include sport fishing, industrial fishing, and recreational viewing. The non-use values include, simply knowing another species still exists, and insuring bio-diversity (various other species rely on the salmon to survive). The benefits of hydroelectric power and crop irrigation also pose question to salmon preservation. What is society’s willingness to pay for preservation? Are consumers willing to trade inexpensive electricity and agricultural success for salmon? Salmon are migratory fish and rely heavily on the condition of the river for their survival. Salmon live in both fresh and salt water and over a period of month's switch back and forth to spawn. Salmon lay their eggs in gravel regions at the further Eastern parts of the Columbia River where they spawn and then proceed to die. Future generations of Salmon begin their lives there, in the fresh water, then mature and proceed to make the journey back to the ocean. Again, after one to four winters, the Salmon return to the spot where they were born and thus complete the cycle. The problems with reproduction come about in a combination of one or two ways. The foremost combatants to the Salmon are the dams placed on the river. These dams prevent flooding, provide irrigation water, and produce electricity. However, these dams also seriously impede the travel of Salmon so that they are not able to travel up-stream to spawn. The other impact on Salmon comes from the dam's placement of sediment. The churning waters that the dams create loosen debris on the river floor and deposit it in some of the gravel beds. Thus, effectively destroying the spawning habitat, and therefore limiting population. In fact, it can be noted that only 3% of the original basin lands retained a landscape similar tohistoric ones. In addition, large pool habitat (spawning ground) has decreased by 50-75% since 1942. The question is: What are the values of Salmon in the Columbia River. The problems with extinction are a direct result of a "tragedy of the commons" brought on by common use property rights. That is, everyone acting in his or her owns self interest makes the rest of society worse-off. In the case of Columbia River fishing, one fisherman catching fish (or exceeding the catch limit) will not consequentially effect the Salmon population. The fisherman, in this case, is simply acting in his/her own self-interest thus lending to a better welfare. However, when all the individual fishermen take part in the destructive activity then the integrity of the entire Salmon population is severely jeopardized. In fact, by the mid-1980's wild Salmon runs had decreased by a near 75% margin because of over fishing. Another problem faced by the Columbia River and the Salmon is the difficulties found with measuring the use and non-use values of the river and the fish. That is: What are the values society gets from simply having the fish and/or river in existence? This kind of value estimation is very problematic in that several other species of wild life rely on the Salmon as a primary source of food. Also, problems are encountered when trying to estimate people's willingness to pay to preserve Salmon and the river. Often it is the case that survey questions, depending on who writes them and how, give people an incentive toeither overestimate the worth of Salmon (if not going to be charged for restoration), or to underestimate the value of Salmon (if made to pay taxes or give donations). What value do we give bio diversity? Do we take into account the bears and eagles that also rely on the salmon? If we do, then the non-use values of the Salmon may be very high. At one extreme, we might imagine that the river is restored to its original state. That is to say thatthe values (both use and non-use) of Salmon in the river provide greater benefit then theuse of the river itself. Recall that the primary uses of the river are agriculture, trade/transport and electricity. Therefore, it is doubtful that the current population of the Northwest is willing to give up most of its livelihood2 in order to preserve a species of fish. The other extreme to consider is to abandon the Salmon species all together. That is, use the river however we see fit regardless of the plight of the Salmon population. In this case, it is the expected