Griffin, Ronald C.

April, 2005

By: Characklis, Gregory W.; Griffin, Ronald C.; Bedient, Philip B.
Approaches for evaluating salinity management benefits are generalized and extended to incorporate consideration of desalination and long-term changes in salinity concentration and water use patterns. Previous research indicates urban users incur the vast majority of salinity-related damages in affected regions, suggesting municipalities may benefit by considering mitigating actions independent of agriculture. However, previous studies have included no consideration of desalination. Earlier studies have also considered stepped increases in salinity, assuming a single future concentration when estimating the long-term benefits of salinity reduction, an approach inconsistent with the incremental nature of these increases. Long-term changes in water use patterns (urban vs. agricultural), when considered at all, have often been treated in the same stepwise fashion. For this analysis, a suitable region is selected and the benefits of a hypothetical salinity management program are estimated using the approach described. These results are then compared with those obtained through the use of several previous methods. Findings suggest that consideration of desalination and incremental variations in salinity and water use patterns can substantially lower the estimated benefits of regional salinity management programs.

July, 1998

By: Centner, Terence J.; Griffin, Ronald C.
Fence-in laws in most states require ranchers to pay for fences to keep their livestock from trespassing onto others' property. Some states, or jurisdictions within states, have a fence-out rule that requires ranchers' neighbors to pay for fences to keep livestock out. Both rules are Pareto optimal. Using a potential Pareto criterion, we show that a preference for fence-out in some areas may end as conditions change, such as increased nonranching land uses. Changed conditions may have legal consequences. Specific fence-out and fence cost-sharing provisions may be potentially Pareto inefficient and may be challenged for being unconstitutional under the due process clause.