<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 />
|