From the Columbus Dispatch:
Armed with nets, a plastic dinghy and a 300-volt generator, a team of fish experts spent a day last week collecting fish from the Clear Fork Branch of the Mohican River, looking for a deadly disease called viral hemorrhagic septicemia [VHS].
Officials thought the contagious virus, which makes fish bleed to death, was contained in the Great Lakes.
But the discovery of VHS in the Clear Fork Reservoir in Morrow and Richland counties has changed all that. It's the first discovery in a U.S. waterway that doesn't drain to the Great Lakes.
"The bug is out," said Ken Phillips, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service microbiologist based in La Crosse, Wis. "In theory, it could make it all the way to the Mississippi River."
So what are the potential damages from an outbreak of a killer fish virus? I'm glad you asked.
In 1999 or so, a team of esteemed researchers--ok, John and me and a few others--were asked to establish the damages from outbreaks of Pfiesteria Piscicida in the mid-atlantic states. Here's a brief summary of our findings (the full report can be found here):
In 1992 researchers at North Carolina State University identified Pfiesteria Piscicida (Pfiesteria) as one possible cause of fish kills in eastern North Carolina’s estuary system (Burkholder et al.). Pfiesteria is a single-celled microorganism that lies dormant in the sediment of fresh and brackish water estuaries, but in combination with high nutrient concentrations potentially becomes a toxic predator of a number of local fish species...Recently, Pfiesteria has been linked to fish kills in Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. In addition to the scientific questions concerning the effects of Pfiesteria on the ecological health of the Mid-Atlantic region’s estuary system, public perception of Pfiesteria and other harmful algal blooms has the potential to impose significant economic losses on the region. Lost use of recreational resources, lost tourism revenues, decreased consumption of seafood, lost fishing time due to estuary closures, possible medical costs for treatment and increased regulation on industries that impact the estuary systems all represent decreases in the economic welfare to the Mid-Atlantic region.
[...]
The lost consumer surplus due to a published/reported fish kill is estimated to be between $1.70 and $3.31 per meal if no information, counter information or seafood inspection program is provided to the consumer. Aggregating this number to the population of seafood consumers (13.08 million residents, of which 41.6% seafood consumers eat 4 meals per month on average), the lost consumer surplus due to a fish kill event is $37 million to $72 million in the month following the fish kill. Further evidence of the significance of the lost welfare due to uncertainty regarding the safety of seafood is the respondents’ stated willingness to pay of $10.76 per meal for a mandatory seafood inspection and certification program, or $2.8 billion annually. The estimated welfare improvements derived from the seafood inspection program are broader in scope that Pfiesteria-related fish-kill events. This figure is significantly higher than the estimated welfare losses associated with a fish kill, and represents a willingness to pay estimate for general seafood safety. This includes uncertainty about safety in relation to Pfiesteria, and other safety concerns.
Does this mean that an outbreak of a different virus in a different water system will have the same value?
No.
Does it mean that there is the potential for significant economic losses from outbreaks of viral hemorrhagic septicemia?
Yes.
How big are the losses from VHS?
Well, you'll have to pay John and me a bunch of money to find out--but we come cheaper than many. So make us an offer--you might be surprised.
