Montana breweries are reducing their water footprints by paying water rights holders to keep water in streams. Rob Harmon, formerly of the Bonneville Environmental Foundation, discusses this innovative approach to water scarcity in the West. It's enviropreneurship in action.
Posts in Water
by Holly Fretwell
“That is spectacular!” “Who owns this?” “Check out the wide-open space!” These were comments made this summer by participants of the PERC/Liberty Fund cosponsored colloquium on Free Market Environmentalism. The annual program offers 25 undergraduate students the opportunity to explore how property rights and markets can help improve environmental quality. To bring theory outside of the classroom and into the real world, the group spends a day exploring on-the-ground examples of free market environmentalism.
One destination for 2010 was the Granger Ranches owned by Jeff Laszlo. A native of New York, Laszlo came to manage the family ranch just a decade ago. That Laszlo became a rancher was no accident; childhood visits to the ranch pumped the desire to work the Montana range into his blood. But it was by accident that he became an environmentalist.
The 13,000-acre ranch sits in the middle of the Madison Valley amidst a one million-acre corridor that runs from the small town of Ennis, Montana, south to Yellowstone National Park. The valley is channeled by the Madison River and framed by the Madison and Gravelly mountain ranges. Most of the valley is privately owned, skirted by federal lands and an occasional state allotment. This area is famous for having the greatest ecological abundance in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem.
Change may be at the cusp, however, as properties like the Granger face the ever increasing pressures of rising operational costs, low returns on investment, encroaching development, wildlife, and inheritance issues. These hurdles often force the sale of large land holdings that can have dire environmental consequences by disrupting the wildlife corridors that run through the valley.
Laszlo is responding to these challenges with a push for conservation and a diversification of the values his land represents. In Laszlo’s words, “Some only see value in the forage that can be raised on the land as crops or native pasture, but I now see a new set of values that include biodiversity, habitat, water quality, and open space. As these things become rarer, the value they represent will become more precious in many ways.” In this way, Laszlo sees managing the Granger Ranches as a “balancing act between consumptive practices and preserving the land for the important biological and economic values it represents.”
Yet, the very ecological abundance that makes the Madison Valley a treasured place can also present complications to livestock producers. Vast herds of elk compete for the same forage needed to raise cattle. And the number of wolves in the region now exceeds a “sustainable” population according to the original reintroduction plan. While wolves help keep the elk numbers in check, they occasionally feed on the cattle that ranchers depend on to make ends meet. Just the presence of predators like wolves can stress livestock enough to reduce weight gain, which translates into decreased cattle revenues.
The latest PERC Policy Series by James Salzman brings attention to a rapidly developing phenomenon—payments for ecosystem services (PES). Salzman, the Samuel F. Mordecai Professor of Law and the Nicholas Institute Professor of Environmental Policy at Duke University, explains when and where ecosystem services can be provided by voluntary markets rather than government actions.
The key to understanding how PES work is rooted in the basis of any voluntary market transaction—gains from trade. One party agrees to take action because another party offers an incentive. Both parties benefit. A beekeeper, for example, brings her hives to an orchard to provide pollination services for a fee. But Salzman explores the less obvious services such as forests at the top of a municipal watershed that act as a filter providing clean water to people below.
Salzman states that we receive many environmental benefits for “free,” which provides little or no incentive for people to pay for them or for entrepreneurs to provide them. Because price signals that alert individuals about scarce resources in traditional markets are absent, ecosystem services are taken for granted—until they stop providing benefits. Then the cost of remediation or building infrastructure, such as a water treatment plant, makes their value obvious.
For decades the solution to environmental protection has been government action. Today, knowledge about environmental processes combined with increased environmental sensitivity provides opportunities for entrepreneurs to find innovative ways of developing markets for ecosystem services.
Read the Policy Series online here.
If you haven't already, be sure to check out the latest edition of PERC Reports. You can read the magazine's text at PERCReports.org in HTML or in it's colorful entirety in PDF format. The new edition explores frontiers in land management and how innovative property rights arrangements can improve environmental quality and reduce land use conflicts. We will continue to feature select articles from the magazine throughout the week on the PERColator and welcome your feedback.
In the fall edition of PERC Reports out this week, James Salzman, professor of law and environmental policy at Duke University, provides an overview of ecosystem services and the conditions under which markets can provide them. Look for more from Salzman on this topic in a forthcoming PERC Policy Series.
When visiting a store, one expects to find useful goods and services such as apples to eat and a refrigerator to keep them chilled. We depend on similar items in our everyday lives. In much the same way, nature also provides us valuable goods and services. When we bite into an apple, if we pause to think beyond the store where it was purchased, we may think of soil and water, but probably not the natural pollinators that fertilized the apple blossom so the fruit can set. When we drink a glass of tap water, we may think of the local reservoir, but not the source of the water quality, which lies miles upstream in the wooded watershed that filters and cleans the water as it flows downhill.
Largely taken for granted, healthy ecosystems provide a variety of critical goods and services. Created by the interactions of living organisms with their environment, “ecosystem services” provide both the conditions and processes that sustain human life. Trees provide timber; coastal marshes provide shellfish. That’s obvious. The services underpinning these goods, though less visible, are equally important. If you doubt this, consider how to grow an apple without pollination, pest control, or soil fertility.
A specific landscape creates a range of ecosystem services. A forest at the top of a watershed, for example, provides water quality by filtering contaminants from the water as it flows through roots and soil, flood control as the water slows while moving through the watershed, pollination by those pollinators living along the edge of the forest, and biodiversity conservation if endangered plants or animals live in the woods. Or consider something as simple as soil. More than a clump of dirt, soil is a complex matrix of organic and inorganic constituents transformed by numerous tiny organisms. The level of biological activity within soil is staggering. Under a square meter of pasture soil in Denmark, for example, scientists identified more than 50,000 worms, 48,000 small insects, and 10 million nematodes. This living soil provides a range of ecosystem services: buffering and moderation of the hydrological cycle, physical support for plants, retention and delivery of nutrients to plants, disposal of wastes and dead organic matter, and renewal of soil fertility.
Just as we tend not to think about everyday goods and services until the store is out of apples or the refrigerator stops working, so, too, do we fail to appreciate the importance of services until we suffer the impacts of their loss. One cannot easily appreciate the impact that widespread wetland destruction has had on the ecosystem service of water retention until after a flood. Nor does one fully appreciate water quality until recognizing how development in forested watersheds has degraded the service of water purification. The costs from degradation of these services are high, and are suffered in rich and poor countries alike.
Despite the central role ecosystem services play in the provision of important benefits, they are only rarely considered or protected by the law. Nor, in the past, have significant markets arisen that capitalize on the commercial value of these services. The reason for this neglect is threefold. First, we are often either ignorant of the sources of the ecosystem goods and services we depend on, or we lack the scientific knowledge to predict with certainty how specific actions affecting these factors will impact the local ecosystem services themselves. Second, institutional barriers such as jurisdictional boundaries and inadequate property rights often hinder the development of markets for these services. And third, the ecosystem services underpinning these goods are often treated as if they are free...
In 1962, Congressman Wayne Aspinall wrote to President Kennedy asking him to establish a commission to review public land laws. What resulted two years later was the Public Land Law Review Commission, which later released a report that became the blueprint for public lands legislation including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Forest Management Act.
On this 40th anniversary of the commission’s report, it is worth reflecting on its impacts. Did the ensuing laws and regulations give us better management of one third of the nation’s land? Do we have the best people with adequate funding using the best science and practicing “adaptive management” through experiments that balance human and environmental values? If you think the answer is yes, take another look at the emperor; he is naked.
For the latest example, consider the recent federal court decision in Montana to relist the wolf as an endangered species. When the Canadian immigrants were brought to Yellowstone in the mid 1990s, they were an “experimental population” that would be delisted if the numbers grew to 30 breeding pairs or 300 wolves. With wolf numbers in the northern Rockies much greater than this—the population in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming now exceeds 1,700—the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asked the three states to development management plans so that canis lupus could be delisted. The service accepted Montana and Idaho’s plans, which included hunting, but rejected Wyoming’s because it went too far in allowing wolves to be shot. Environmental groups centered far from a wolf’s howl filed suit to block the delisting and were successful when Judge Donald Molloy ruled that wolves in the northern Rockies are a single population that cannot be segmented based on political boundaries.
As we continuously see, politics is what federal resource management is all about. Politics dictated wolf reintroduction in the first place, so it is not surprising that politics continues to be the battleground. For example, Defenders of Wildlife, one of the parties to the lawsuit blocking delisting, helped overcome early political opposition from ranchers when it raised private funds to compensate ranchers for livestock losses due to wolf predation. Now Defenders wants wolf populations to continue growing and have the taxpayer foot the bill for compensation. That sounds a lot like politics to me.
Water management is just as bad. Recently, the California State Water Resources Control Board recommended that 75 percent—up from 50 percent—of Central Valley's water should flow to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to protect the delta smelt and chinook salmon. The ruling prompted Earthjustice attorney Trent Orr to say, “Water officials have made the right call today to fix the Delta by restoring at least minimum water flows to keep nature alive, including our valuable salmon runs. There are a lot of humans that would benefit if the Delta were brought back to health.” There are also a lot of human who will bear the cost of cutting water to agriculture and urban users by 50 percent. It is often said that water flows uphill to money. In this case it gushes uphill to politics.
If you think forest management is any better, check out the red and green mosaic that covers most of the West. The red is a tinderbox of pine trees killed by the pine bark beetle, ready to ignite with the smallest spark. Hiking behind my home, you will find many trees marked for cutting under a plan by the Forest Service to protect Bozeman’s watershed from disastrous fires that will cost millions of dollars to fight and millions more to restore water quality. However, when I asked a friend at the Forest Service when they would start cutting, he laughed and said the plan will be tied up in court for years by environmentalists who claim the forest is habitat for endangered species such as grizzly bears and lynx. How many bears and lynx will be there when the red and green is replaced by black?
A recent PERC study—“Two Forests Under the Big Sky”—contrasts federal and tribal forest management. In that study, Alison Berry shows that the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes manage their land better, in part, because they are not subject to the same environmental laws as the U.S. Forest Service—laws emanating from that commission four decades ago.
Federal land management is a sham. As Jack Ward Thomas, former chief of the Forest Service, puts it, federal land management is tied in a “Gordian knot.” That knot is the result of laws and regulations that allow for environmental litigation at every turn. Berry pointed out that in 2007, more than 21 million board feet were held up in appeals and litigation on the Lolo. Federal resource management legislation may look like science in sheep’s clothing, but the fact is that it is politics in wolf’s clothing.
Terry Anderson is executive director at PERC and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. A version of this article will appear in the upcoming edition of PERC Reports.
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4


Founded 30 years ago in Bozeman, Montana, PERC—the Property and Environment Research Center—is the nation’s oldest and largest institute dedicated to improving environmental quality through property rights and markets.
PERC’s publications, each designed to resonate with specific groups, move ideas generated at PERC to broader audiences.
Research is at the heart of PERC's work, with a focus on the question: What is the link between economic growth and environmental quality?
The goal of PERC’s programs is to fully realize the vision of establishing “PERC University,” where scholars, students, policy makers, and others convene to expand the applications of free market environmentalism.
PERC's fellowships share a common goal of exposing new scholars, students, journalists, and policy makers to free market environmentalism, as well as enable scholars already familiar with FME to explore new applications.
PERC continues to publish and present a broad range of research and discussion through podcasts, videos, and other multimedia channels.