Comments on Socio Econ Workshop Report 

C. Barrett 10/06/10 

2. IMPRESSIONS _ Lessons from small work groups 

On pg 4 the report states: “Participants met in four small groups at the end of the first 

day of the workshop to brainstorm about information needs for GCAMP decision making. 

Each group then reported four or five of their top information needs or research 

questions to the meeting facilitation team.” Table 1 on p. 5 implies that the contents are 

the “top four or five” information needs or research questions from each discussion 

group. This is not the case, as the table also includes items that were offered by 

individuals and not necessarily discussed or vetted or ranked by the discussion groups. 

On the second day of the workshop, a request was made to the facilitator that those 

“individual” comments should be separately noted or distinguished; otherwise there is an 

implication that they “rose to the top” of the group discussions. This recommendation 

was not adopted, nor was there a reason given for why the distinction could or should not 

be made. 

4. RECOMMENDATIONS 

Pg 12 a. . CONSIDERATIONS 

 Re the last sentence of this section - CREDA strongly supports the need for 

adequate peer review of all econ studies done for GCD Amp. 

Pg 13. b. HYDROPOWER 

 This section really lacks discussion of the impacts and importance of the capacity side of 

the power equation. There is minimal discussion of the interconnected grid and WECC. 

This approach over simplifies and tends to minimize the impacts of GCD changes to 

both the WAPA customers and the western grid as a whole. 

 We agree that there is a big need for further study and modeling of the power resource. 

This effort should be headed by the AMWG party most familiar and competent in this 

work, that is WAPA. There should also be significant inputs from parties who actually 

operate power systems that have obligations to serve end users and may have a somewhat 

different but much more accurate and “real world “ experience on how market decisions 

are made. There is also a need to have reliable inputs from WECC, which has also made 

some studies of the impacts of changes in GCD operations. 

 In the first para on pg 13 there is a suggestion that “negawatts” may be a source of 

replacement energy and capacity. That may be true in some future time, BUT, as 

managers who have a responsibility and regulatory obligation to deliver real megawatts 

to real industrial and residential end users, WAPA customers cannot/will not 

allow federal managers to rely on such a source when assessing economic impacts of 

their decisions. 
On P. 13 the report states : “We were told at the meeting in Phoenix that the existing 

power contracts for GCD expire in 2024. This creates the possibility that, when new 

contracts are negotiated for post-2024, it would be possible (and desirable) for WAPA to 

seek contract modifications that take into account the power generation impacts of any 

modification in GCD operations. The opportunity for contract adaptation should be 

factored into the economic assessment of the economic costs of changes in GCD 

operations for the period after 2024.” 

Comment: These statements should be excluded from the report. On day 2 of the 

workshop, the expert panel reported that “Questions X, J and F are outside the scope of 

the AMP.” Further, that they did “not factor question X into their mix”. 

Question X was one of the points that was offered by an individual, not a group (see 

comment above). It is: “Can contracting for firm power WAPA be adjusted to be more 

flexible for current hydrology and operations without affecting the Basin Fund?”  

 As suggested on pg 15 of the report, we support further study of the “carbon costs” of 

replacing GCD generation with other power sources. We also suggest that there should be 

some study of the non-use value to the US citizenry of avoiding these carbon emissions 

with their resulting increase in global warming / climate change and the effects on 

endangered species. 

c. RECREATION 

: Regarding recreation surveys, how are the views of people who are not interested in 

fishing/rafting accounted for? Regarding non-use surveys, as asked by the Hualapai 

representative at the workshop, how can any willingness-to-pay survey be designed so as 

to eliminate all of the biases of the respondent (economic, cultural, spiritual, etc.)? 

. 

 

5. IMPLEMENTATION 

c. Budgeting 

We generally support the power economic work planned for 2011 -12 as in the recent 

AMWG adopted budget 

RE the 2011 plan for a “Nonuse Values 101 “ course for AMWG/TWG members. We 

support having a training program to give the parties a better knowledge/background of 

economics as they may be applied to decision making in the GCDAMP. But this program 

must be expanded to cover all the various types of studies and must include a real life 

power managers decision making process and tools. 

 d. Policy and Legal Analyses. 
 At the end of the report the question is raised – how will the results of all this economic 

work be used in the GCDAMP decision making process? CREDA suggests that this 

should be one of the very first questions to be answered. DOI must not wait until it sees 

the answers before it decides how/if economic impacts will effect its decisions. 

Norm Henderson:

The objectives of the 12/2-3 socioeconomic workshop were as follows: 

 Clarify overall socio economic program information needs in a general 

 sense 

 Recommend studies to be conducted within a ten year timeframe 

 Identify specific information needs to be addressed in the next 3-5 

 years 

 Prioritize Phase I research 

The results/assumptions of the 12/2-3 socioeconomic workshop and the final 

2/26/2010 GCMRC report are as follows: 

 Panel members represented a broad spectrum of well respected 

 economists 

 Report was a consensus report from the panel members 

 Report is an official GCMRC report that adhered to USGS scientific 

 standards 

 Report/workshop summarized past socioeconomic study for AMP 

 stakeholders and workshop participants 

 Report/workshop summarized broad economic concepts for AMP 

 stakeholders and workshop participants 

 Report/workshop Implemented a stakeholder process for identifying, 

 prioritizing and recommending socioeconomic Information needs 

 Report recommends studies, timeframes, and needed GCMRC staff 

 expertise to address the highest priority information needs over the 

 next 5 years 

 Report identifies costs for each of the studies that provides a 

 recommended level of emphasis 

 Makeup of the expert panel and the quality of the report have been 

 reviewed and certified by the Science Advisors 

My findings/comments on the report/workshop: 

 As with other GCMRC panels/PEPs, the socioeconomic panel was 

 represented by a broad spectrum of well qualified economists 

 (academic and practical) 

 GCMRC (with assistance from WAPA and NPS) specified appropriate 

 objectives for the expert panel and workshop 
 The workshop and report was well organized and easily read by 

 managers and other non-economists 

 The report seemed to do a good job of responding to the specified 

 objectives 

 The report and workshop did a good job of summarizing previous 

 economic research along the Colorado River for the AMP 

 The report and workshop provided a good basic explanation of broad 

 economic principals that apply to the resource values found along the 

 Colorado River in GRCA/GLCA 

 The report presented a credible set of socioeconomic information 

 needs and priorities for the AMWG/TWG. These will serve as a 

 foundation for future deliberations with the TWG/AMWG. 

 The report provides good recommendations for studies and GCMRC 

 expertise needed to address the information needs. 

 The report should have better connected the studies and expertise to 

 the information needs. Without such a connection, it is unclear 

 whether the specified studies and expertise are expected to answer 

 all the information needs or merely a subset. 

 I agree with the report recommendation that GCMRC have in house 

 socioeconomic expertise to mange RFP development, power modeling, and 

 study contracting 

 The TWG/AMWG should adopt the GCMRC expert panel report (including 

 studies and timeframes) as the recommended foundation for a 

 comprehensive five year socioeconomic plan for the GCDAMP (with 

 specified exceptions)