LSI 2010 NRD Santa Fe final conference binder 072110.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

William H. Desvousges of W. H. Desvousges & Associates Speaker 27: 8 services provided by these parcels of land are representative of the type of services lost at the former facility site. Costs Furthermore, their compensation approach is flawed. Natural resource damages calculations are not typically based on the cost of land, particularly without identifying a specific piece of property. The Plaintiffs make no proposal for a specific restoration project, much less one that shows evidence that the services provided by the compensatory restoration project would be of the same type and quality as those that were lost at the injured site. In addition, the Plaintiff’s expert does not consider cost effectiveness in his assessment. He uses an average cost of purchasing land. Instead, he should choose the most cost effective alternative for providing compensation. If two pieces of land provide the same groundwater recharge benefits, it would be most efficient to purchase the least cost alternative. Why would a piece of land with a water view be purchased for compensation, if it provides the same groundwater protection as a piece of land with a view of the town landfill? Using an average cost overestimates the cost of providing compensation. SUMMARY This case provides and example of an injured site that does not result in any natural resource damages because there have been no lost services. 1 The loss in natural resource services to the public is the basis for quantifying potential natural resource damages. The damages provide compensation to the public for loss of these services during the period of injury. This compensation is not in lieu of primary restoration of the site but instead makes the public whole for any losses that may have occurred as a result of injury. Without service losses, there is no basis for assessing damages. In this case, the Plaintiff’s expert uses injury as the basis for his assessment. He makes no attempt to identify any services that may have been affected by the injury and instead assumes a 100 percent loss for the resource. This 1 Under cross examination at trial, the Plaintiff’s expert agreed that if there is no loss in services, there are no damages. 7 Law Seminars International | Natural Resource Damages | 07/16/10 in Santa Fe, NM
William H. Desvousges of W. H. Desvousges & Associates Speaker 27: 9 assessment has no basis in the federal damage assessment regulations or in economic principles. REFERENCES Bockstael, Nancy E., A Myrick Freeman, III, Raymond J. Kopp, Paul R. Portney, and V. Kerry Smith. 2000. “On Measuring Economic Values for Nature.” Environmental Science & Technology 34(8):1384-1389. Dunford, R.W., T.C. Ginn, and W.H. Desvousges. 2004. "The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments." Ecological Economics. 48: 49 – 70. Merk, Larry. 2009. “Affidavit of Larry Merk in the Matter of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, The Commissioner of The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and The Administrator of The New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund, v. Essex Chemical Corporation.” Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division - Middlesex County Docket No: MID-L-5685-07. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2006. “Habitat Equivalency Analysis: An Overview.” Damage Assessment and Restoration Program. March 21, 1995 (Revised October 4, 2000 and May 23, 2006). http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/heaoverv.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board. 2009. “Valuing the Protection Ecological Systems and Services.” Report Number EPA-SAB-09- 012. May. www.epa.gov/sab. Zafonte, M. and S. Hampton. 2007. “Exploring the welfare implications of resource equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments.” Ecological Economics. 61: 134 – 145. 8 Law Seminars International | Natural Resource Damages | 07/16/10 in Santa Fe, NM
Page 1:
L A W S E M I N A R S I N T E R N A
Page 4 and 5:
Thursday, July 15, 2010 Natural Res
Page 6 and 7:
James A. Bruen, Richar
Page 8 and 9:
Table of Contents Topic Speaker # C
Page 10 and 11:
Faculty for Natural Resource Damage
Page 13:
Page 16 and 17:
James A. Bruen of Farella Braun + M
Page 18 and 19:
Richard O. Curley, Jr. of Curley &
Page 20 and 21:
David J. Lazerwitz of Farella Braun
Page 23 and 24:
John C. Cruden of U.S. Department o
Page 25:
Page 28 and 29:
Brian D. Israel of Arnold & Porter
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 115:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Andrew O. Guglielmi of New York Sta
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Kenneth Jenkins of ARCADIS Speaker
Page 143 and 144:
Amy L. Horner of U.S. Department of
Page 145:
Page 148 and 149:
Ira Gottlieb of McCarter & English,
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 163:
Page 166 and 167:
John Carlucci of U.S. Department of
Page 168 and 169:
Nathaniel Barber of New York State
Page 170 and 171:
Ken L. Frank of Chevron Environment
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 179 and 180:
Sheri L. Moreno of General Electric
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183:
Page 187 and 188:
John K. Dema of Law Offices of John
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205:
Page 208 and 209:
Bill Jackson of Jackson Gilmour & D
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 225 and 226:
Michael R. Thorp of Summit Law Grou
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Paul D. Boehm of Exponent, Inc. Spe
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249:
Page 253 and 254:
Linda R. Larson of Marten Law PLLC
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261:
Page 265 and 266:
Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319:
Page 322 and 323:
Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 331 and 332: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
Page 353: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
Page 357 and 358: Robert E. Unsworth of Industrial Ec
Page 365 and 366: Rick Dunford of Environmental Econo
Page 371: Rick Dunford of Environmental Econo
Page 374 and 375: William H. Desvousges of W. H. Desv
Page 383 and 384: Donald W. Fowler of Hollingsworth L
show all

LSI 2010 NRD Santa Fe final conference binder 072110.pdf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?