Need some help with this question. show your work please! (: both numbers 2 and

Question

Need some help with this question. show your work please! (:

both numbers 2 and 3 please.

2. Consider the Marginal Net Benefit (MNB) functions for water given below (NOTE: MNB price user would be willing to pay minus extraction cost) Water Price (per 100 gal) dfpr: Drinking wat -t-L-L- $3.0 $2.00 Water+44 Water Availability (Mil. gal) At a price of $1.00 per 100 gal, what is the total demand for water? How much is demanded for irrigation? How much is demanded for drinking? (HINT: Since MNB is just the price plus the (constant) delivery cost, the MNB function works like a demand curve. What you are solving for is analogous to quantities demanded at given prices.) a. b. Repeat part (a) above assuming the price is $3.50 per 100 gal. Winter 2016 Dr. McLaren Midterm II Review Page 2 3. In question 2, you found how water would be efficiently allocated between users as a function of the MNB they receive from its use Does the "Riparian Use" doctrine insure that water will be delivered efficiently? Why or why not? a. b. Answer (a) for the "Beneficial Use" doctrine

Explanation / Answer

Q2) (a)Total demand for water=3.6million gal.

Total water demanded for irrigation=1.3 million gal.

total demand for drinking water=2.3 million gal.

(b)Total demand for water=total demand for drinking water= 0.4 million gal.

Total water demanded for irrigation=0

Q3) (a)

Although water covers more than two thirds of the earth's surface, U.S. law treats water as a limited resource that is in greatdemand. The manner in which this demand is satisfied varies according to the jurisdiction in which a water supply islocated. In some jurisdictions the most productive use is rewarded, whereas in other jurisdictions the first use is protected.Several jurisdictions are dissatisfied with both approaches and allow a water supply to be reasonably appropriated by allinterested parties. Each approach has its weaknesses, and jurisdictions will continue experimenting with established legaldoctrines to better accommodate the supply and demand of water rights.

An owner or possessor of land that abuts a natural stream, river, pond, or lake is called a riparian owner or proprietor. Thelaw gives riparian owners certain rights to water that are incident to possession of the adjacent land. Depending on thejurisdiction in which a watercourse is located, riparian rights generally fall into one of three categories.

First, riparian owners may be entitled to the "natural flow" of a watercourse. Under the natural flow doctrine, riparian ownershave a right to enjoy the natural condition of a watercourse, undiminished in quantity or quality by other riparian owners.Every riparian owner enjoys this right to the same extent and degree, and each such owner maintains a qualified right to usethe water for domestic purposes, such as drinking and bathing.

However, this qualified right does not entitle riparian owners to transport water away from the land abutting the watercourse.Nor does it permit riparian owners to use the water for most irrigation projects or commercial enterprises. Sprinkling gardensand watering animals are normally considered permissible uses under the natural flow doctrine of riparian rights.

Second, riparian owners may be entitled to the "reasonable use" of a watercourse. States that recognize the reasonable usedoctrine found the natural flow doctrine too restrictive. During the industrial revolution of the nineteenth century, some U.S.courts applied the natural flow doctrine to prohibit riparian owners from detaining or diverting a watercourse for commercialdevelopment, such as manufacturing and milling, because such development impermissibly altered the water's originalcondition.

In replacing the natural flow doctrine, a majority of jurisdictions in the United States now permit riparian owners to make anyreasonable use of water that does not unduly interfere with the competing rights and interests of other riparian owners.Unlike the natural flow doctrine, which seeks to preserve water in its original condition, the reasonable use doctrinefacilitates domestic and commercial endeavors that are carried out in a productive and reasonable manner.

When two riparian owners assert competing claims over the exercise of certain water rights, courts applying the reasonableuse doctrine generally attempt to measure the economic value of the water rights to each owner. Courts also try to evaluatethe prospective value to society that would result from a riparian owner's proposed use, as well as its probable costs. Nosingle factor is decisive in a court's analysis.

Third, riparian owners may be entitled to the "prior appropriation" of a watercourse. Where the reasonable use doctrinerequires courts to balance the competing interests of riparian owners, the doctrine of prior appropriation initially grants asuperior legal right to the first riparian owner who makes a beneficial use of a watercourse. The prior appropriation doctrine isapplied in most arid western states, including Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyomingand requires the riparian owner to demonstrate that she is using the water in an economically efficient manner.Consequently, the rights of a riparian owner under the prior appropriation doctrine are always subject to the rights of otherriparian owners who can demonstrate a more economically efficient use.

Under any of the three doctrines, the interests of riparian owners are limited by the constitutional authority of the state andfederal governments. The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate Navigable Waters, a power that Congress has exercised in a variety of ways, including the construction of dams. In those instanceswhere Congress does not exercise its power under the Commerce Clause, states retain authority under their ownconstitutions to regulate waterways for the public good.

However, the eminent domain clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits the power of state andfederal governments to impinge on the riparian rights of landowners by prohibiting the enactment of any laws or regulationsthat amount to a "taking" of private property. Laws and regulations that completely deprive a riparian owner of legallycognizable water rights constitute an illegal governmental taking of private property for Fifth Amendment purposes. The FifthAmendment requires the government to pay the victims of takings an amount equal to the fair market value of the waterrights.

Some litigation arises not from the manner in which neighboring owners appropriate water but from the manner in which theyget rid of it. The disposal of surface waters, which consist of drainage from rain, springs, and melting snow, is typically thesource of such litigation. This type of water gathers on the surface of the earth but never joins a stream, lake, or other well-defined body of water.

Litigation arises when one owner drains excess surface water onto neighboring property. Individuals who own elevatedproperty may precipitate a dispute by accelerating the force or quantity of surface water running downhill, and individualswho own property on a lower level may rankle their neighbors by backing up surface water through damming and filling.Courts are split on how to resolve such disputes.

Some courts apply the common-law rule that allows landowners to use any method of surface water removal they choosewithout liability for flooding that may result to nearby property. Application of this rule generally rewards assertive and cleverlandowners and does not discourage neighbors from engaging in petty or vindictive squabbles over surface water removal.

Other courts apply the civil-law rule, which stems from Louisiana, a civil-law jurisdiction. This rule imposes Strict Liabilityfor any damage caused by a landowner who interrupts or alters the natural flow of water. The civil-law rule encouragesneighbors to let nature take its course and live with the consequences that may follow from excessive accumulation ofstanding surface water.

Over the last quarter century many courts have begun applying the reasonable use rule to surface water disputes. This ruleenables landowners to make reasonable alterations to their land for drainage purposes as long as the alteration does notunduly interfere with a neighbor's right to do the same. In applying this rule, courts balance the neighbors' competing needs,the feasibility of more appropriate methods of drainage, and the comparative severity of injuries.

Surface water that seeps underground can also create conditions ripe for litigation. Sand, sod, gravel, and even rock arepermeable substances in which natural springs may form and moisture can collect. Underground reservoirs can be tappedby artificial wells that are used in conjunction by commercial, municipal, and private parties. When an underground watersupply is appreciably depleted by one party, other parties with an interest in the well may sue for damages.

b) Western States follow prior appropriation principles for use of river and stream waters.

Under the doctrine of prior appropriation whoever uses a particular river water first acquires a right to continued enjoyment of the same over and above rival claimants who start consuming later. Subsequent users can utilize only the remaining water.

Here downstream owners suffer a distinct disadvantage since those upstream can appropriate as much water as they need for beneficial purpose, of course, without causing water pollution or without contaminating the river.

As such upstream owners are in law obliged to pass over clean water downstream free of water pollution.

Each water right has a yearly quantity and an appropriation date. Each year, the user with the earliest appropriation date (known as the "senior appropriator") may use up to their full allocation (provided the water source can supply it). Then the user with the next earliest appropriation date may use their full allocation and so on. In times of drought, users with junior appropriation dates might not receive their full allocation or even any water at all.

When a water right is sold, it retains its original appropriation date. Only the amount of water historically consumed can be transferred if a water right is sold. For example, if alfalfa is grown, using flood irrigation, the amount of the return flow may not be transferred, only the amount that would be necessary to irrigate the amount of alfalfa historically grown. If a water right is not used for a beneficial purpose for a period of time it may lapse under the doctrine of abandonment. Abandonment of a water right is rare, but occurred in Colorado in a case involving the South Fork of San Isabel Creek in Saguache County, Colorado.

For water sources with many users, a government or quasi-government agency is usually charged with overseeing allocations. Allocations involving water sources that cross state borders or international borders can be quite contentious, and are generally governed by federal court rulings, interstate agreements and international treaties.

Even though water markets are increasingly gaining ground, many have criticized the prior appropriation system for failing to adequately adjust to society's evolving values. For example, the vast majority of water in the West still is allocated to agricultural uses despite the cries for additional water from growing cities. Additionally, the high demand for the allocation of water can cause an over-appropriation of the waters. This means that there are more water rights for that particular stream than there is water actually available.For example, in Nevada, approximately 45 basins are over-appropriated. Similarly, environmentalists and those who use rivers for recreational and/or scenic purposes have demanded that more water be left in rivers in streams. The prior appropriation system has in many ways inhibited these calls for change.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse N
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.