Miller and Lux 25. Miller and Lux, large cattle ranchers in the late 1800s in California,...

 

Transcribed Image Text:

Miller and Lux 25. Miller and Lux, large cattle ranchers in the late 1800s in California, had Riparian rights to the lower Kem River (past Bakersfield). Upstream appropriator James Haggin builds a canal near Bakersfield, diverts water in 1875, dries up the stream during the 1877-79 drought, and kills thousands of Miller and Lux's cattle downstream. Miller and Lux sue. This is a famous true story - for details, see https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux_v. Haggin (Links to an external site.) Links to an external site Suppose Miller and Lux have a MB of water: P-10-Q/4. The Kern River has 40 AF of water every year. Haggin has a MB of water P-40-2Q. Assume the MC of water extraction is 0. AF Q=_ a. Determine the efficient allocation of water and specifically how much Haggin should receive P=40-2a MB of water P-10-Q/4 Kern River = 40 AF b. Since Haggin is upstream, he is physically able to take as much as he'd like, which is what caused the problem in the first place. In the absence of any negotiation, determine how much water he will take (recall his MC=0) and the resulting deadweight loss. Report the deadweight loss here: C. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miller & Lux, the downstream cattle ranchers, stating that their riparian rights (granted to any adjacent-to-a-stream property owner) were superior to Haggin's appropriative rights. Thus, Haggin could only take water that Miller and Lux didn't need. If Haggin weren't upstream, what quantity of water would Miller & Lux take each year? (se. what would they do if no one else used the stream)? AF d. Explain why Haggin's presence changes the situation, even though Miller and Lux won in court and have the right to take as much as they wish. Why is your answer above (what Miller & Lux would take in isolation) unlikely to prevail? Explain 19 Miller and Lux 25. Miller and Lux, large cattle ranchers in the late 1800s in California, had Riparian rights to the lower Kem River (past Bakersfield). Upstream appropriator James Haggin builds a canal near Bakersfield, diverts water in 1875, dries up the stream during the 1877-79 drought, and kills thousands of Miller and Lux's cattle downstream. Miller and Lux sue. This is a famous true story - for details, see https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux_v. Haggin (Links to an external site.) Links to an external site Suppose Miller and Lux have a MB of water: P-10-Q/4. The Kern River has 40 AF of water every year. Haggin has a MB of water P-40-2Q. Assume the MC of water extraction is 0. AF Q=_ a. Determine the efficient allocation of water and specifically how much Haggin should receive P=40-2a MB of water P-10-Q/4 Kern River = 40 AF b. Since Haggin is upstream, he is physically able to take as much as he'd like, which is what caused the problem in the first place. In the absence of any negotiation, determine how much water he will take (recall his MC=0) and the resulting deadweight loss. Report the deadweight loss here: C. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miller & Lux, the downstream cattle ranchers, stating that their riparian rights (granted to any adjacent-to-a-stream property owner) were superior to Haggin's appropriative rights. Thus, Haggin could only take water that Miller and Lux didn't need. If Haggin weren't upstream, what quantity of water would Miller & Lux take each year? (se. what would they do if no one else used the stream)? AF d. Explain why Haggin's presence changes the situation, even though Miller and Lux won in court and have the right to take as much as they wish. Why is your answer above (what Miller & Lux would take in isolation) unlikely to prevail? Explain 19

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Miller and Lux Case Analysis a Efficient Allocation of Water Step 1 Find marginal benefits and marginal costs Miller and LuxMB 10 Q4 MB decreases as t... View the full answer