Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />~' <br />N <br /><:... <br /> <br /> <br />1993] <br /> <br />CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT <br /> <br />173 <br /> <br />water companies (mutuals) and water conservancy districts." Mutuals <br />are private associations, usually organized under nonprofit corporation <br />statutes;o whose customers are also their shareholders. Water <br />conservancy districts are public agencies organized to deliver water from <br />various federal or state projects.ll They are governed by a board of <br />directors, which often is elected by an exclusionary process.'" In Utah, <br />for example, the board is appointed either by courts or by the Gover- <br />nor.78 Thus, there is little public accountability.7' <br />Both water districts and mutuals have generally impeded water <br />markets. Mutuals have facilitated water transfers in some cases,15 but <br />a majority of mutuals restrict water transfers,7s Public water conser- <br />vancy districts restrict water transfers more than mutuals. Most water <br />districts are unsuited for water transfers between urban and agricultur- <br />al UBeS,77 and many districts have been reluctant to encourage conser- <br /> <br />. For a discunion of mutual. and water conservancy districts in Utah. see Swenson, supra <br />note 8. at 35-52. In 1978 mutuals delivered approximately 21% of water for irrigation in the <br />West and water conservancy districta delivered approximately 25%. See 4 BUREAU OF THE <br />CENsUS, U.S. DEP'T OF COMMERCE, 1975 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE 148. <br />70 Swenson, .upra note 8, at 37. <br />" ld. at 42, 46-48. <br />n See Merrill R. Goodall It John D. Sullivan, Water DiBtrict Organization: Political Decision <br />Sy.terru, in CALIFORNIA WATER i'LANNING AND PoUCY: SELECTED ISSUES 207-27 (Ernest A. <br />Englebert ed., 1979); Tim De Young, Governing Special Di8tricu: TM Conflict Between Voting <br />Ri6hU and Properly Priuilq.., 1982 ARIZ. ST. L.J, 419, 424, For a summary of the Utah <br />lituation, see Joseph M. Bauman, Utah', Water Law. Inequitable, DESERET NEWS (Salt Lake <br />City), Nov. 30, 1990, at A9. <br />'1' Swenson, .upra note 8, at 47-49. <br />74 See id. at 49-50. In Utah, a recent audit of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District <br />raised these concerns during the CUP reauthorization proces8. See LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR GEN., <br />STATE OF UTAH, REP. No. 89-12, A PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF TIlE CENTRAL UTAH WATER <br />CONSERVANCY DISTRICT (1989); ... also CUWCD Should Follow Auditor'. S"88..lio,.., DAILY <br />HERALD (Provo, Utah), Dec. 26, 1989, at AI0; Jim Woolf, Audil: Co""''''''ncy Di6lrid May Haue <br />7hxed Too Mu<:h, SALT LAKE TRIB., Dec. 22, 1989, at Bl; Josephine Zemmerman, Audil Crilical <br />ofCUWCD for Mi6"",""Iri'Yl Furuh, DAILY HERALD (Provo, Utah), Dec. 22, 1989, at AI. <br />.. See, ..g" NATIONAL REsEARCH COUNCIL, WATER TRANSFERS IN TIlE WEST: EFFICIENCY. <br />EQUlTY, AND TIlE ENVIRONMENT 150-51 (1992); BONNIE COLBY SALIBA & DAVID B. BUSH, WATER <br />MAIlKETs IN THEORY AND PRACTICE 128-39, 165-71 (1987); Richard W. Wahl & Frank H. <br />Osterhoudt, Voluntary Tra,..f.,.. ofWtJler in 1M W..I, in UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, <br />NATIONAL WATER SUMMARY 1985, 113, 114 (1986). <br />7t See Micha Gisser & Ronald N. Johnson, Institutional Re.trictions on the Transfer of Water <br />Ri(fhU and 1M Survi""l of an Ag.ncy, in WATER RIGHTS: ScARCE REsOURCE AlLOCATION, <br />BUREAUCRACY, AND TIlE ENVIRONMENT 137, 154-55 crerry L, Anderson ed., 1983); Wahl & <br />Osterhoudt, supra note 74, at 120 (discU8Bing Utah mutuals). Some commentators note that <br />mutual board, of directors often block transfers when the transfer would injure other <br />eharehoJde.... ld. <br />" Su Chari.. W. Howe et aI" lnno""tiue ApP1'OCoCM' to Water Allooolion: TM Potential for <br />WtJler MaruI<, 22 WATER REsoURCES REsEARCH 439, 443 (1986); Rodney T. Smith & Roger <br />