Water Rights: Scarce Resource Allocation, Bureaucracy, and the Environment. Pacific Studies in Public Policy. Terry L. AndersonRethinking the Federal Lands. Based on a Workshop Held in Portland, Oregon, September, 1982. Sterling BrubakerAmerica's National Parks and Their Keepers. Ronald A. ForestaUnited States Arctic Interests: The 1980s and 1990s. William E. Westermeyer , Kurt M. Shusterich

1985 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 537-537
Author(s):  
Joel W. Hedgpeth
Author(s):  
Asha Devereaux ◽  
Holly Yang ◽  
Gilbert Seda ◽  
Viji Sankar ◽  
Ryan C. Maves ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Successful management of an event where health-care needs exceed regional health-care capacity requires coordinated strategies for scarce resource allocation. Publications for rapid development, training, and coordination of regional hospital triage teams to manage the allocation of scarce resources during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are lacking. Over a period of 3 weeks, over 100 clinicians, ethicists, leaders, and public health authorities convened virtually to achieve consensus on how best to save the most lives possible and share resources. This is referred to as population-based crisis management. The rapid regionalization of 22 acute care hospitals across 4500 square miles in the midst of a pandemic with a shifting regulatory landscape was challenging, but overcome by mutual trust, transparency, and confidence in the public health authority. Because many cities are facing COVID-19 surges, we share a process for successful rapid formation of health-care care coalitions, Crisis Standard of Care, and training of Triage Teams. Incorporation of continuous process improvement and methods for communication is essential for successful implementation. Use of our regional health-care coalition communications, incident command system, and the crisis care committee helped mitigate crisis care in the San Diego and Imperial County region as COVID-19 cases surged and scarce resource collaborative decisions were required.


2008 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Gainor

The Government of Canada retained control of Crown lands and mineral and water rights in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba until 1930 when they were transferred to the three provincial governments as a result of agreements reached in 1929. In the case of Alberta, the agreement also settled the boundaries for Banff and Jasper national parks. The national parks discussions helped establish the principle that resource extraction would not take place in national parks anywhere in Canada. This paper examines the political background to the discussions over national parks and the process for setting the boundaries of these parks, with an emphasis on a report on park boundaries that addressed resource development and wildlife management in and near the parks, issues that parks administrators continue to face today.


2007 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 16-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ware G. Kuschner ◽  
John B. Pollard ◽  
Stephen C. Ezeji-Okoye

1995 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Zilberman ◽  
Eithan Hochman

This project is a continuation of US 2081-91. Together they develop a conceptual and empirical framework to analyze alternative forms of water reform that lead to efficient pricing of water. Our analysis demonstrates that the transition from water rights systems to water trading may lead to improved resource allocation even when overall availability of water resources declines. We introduce two systems of water trading, passive markets and active markets, and show that passive markets lead to efficient resource allocation with lower transaction costs. We demonstrate that both methods of trading are superior to block pricing. We identify the political economic situations that would lead to each type of water resource allocation. Examples from Israel and California are used to demonstrate the conceptual results.  


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document