WSP09351 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'.:'.1 u"') N N "" . . - ~ 'r "i',..: i "' t < . '-} .~ "( 1993] CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT 177 Turner-ize instream flows in Montana.n'" Recent studies verify the deep-seated opposition to water markets in rural communities.'02 The Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy found that most rural community leaders believe rural-to-urban water transfers will result in a decrease in land productivity, a decline in agriculture, and a reduction in eduction, health care, and social services provided by the community, '03 Eighty-nine percent of rural communi- ty leaders surveyed believed that the losses to the community associated with the transfer of water were uncompensable.'04 Most importantly, leaders of rural communities perceive water transfers to be win-lose propositions that are unlikely to ever garner the support of water-losing communities.'" The study concluded that "water is not just viewed as an economic commodity-it is also tied to important community values of security, opportunity and se1f-determination,"'06 and that it is unlikely that the long-standing conflict over water will be solved by assigning water decisions to the marketplace, 2. Inertia 1 Even if farmers and rural communities are not injured by or even profit from water marketing, they will always oppose changing fanning techniques or crop production. One explanation for the farmer's resistance to change may be the psychological phenomena of biased 101 ld. at 286. 102 See. e.g., Kenneth R. Weber, Effect8 of Water Transfer. on Rural Area.t: A Re.ponse to Shupe, Weatherford, and Checchio, 30 NAT, RESOURCES J, 13, 14 (1990) (stating thst in an irrigation-based agricultural economy. a strong and direct relationship exists between the presence of irrigation water and local economic health)j see also Steven J. Shupe et at, Western Water Right.: The Era of Reallocation, 29 NAT. REsOURCES J. 413, 428 (1989) (stating that water transfers threaten the overall economic health of rural areas). 103 Cy R. Oggilll &: Helen M. Ingram, Doe. Anybody WinY The Community Consequence. of Rural-to-Urban Waur Tramfer.: AnArizona Per.pectilH!. in UDAlL CENTER FOR STuDIES IN PuB. PoIJCY. ISSUE PAPER No.2 (1990). Eighty-seven percent of rural leaders thought that water transfers cause a decrease in the productivity of their land. ld. at 18 fig. 10. Seventy percent thought there would be a decline in agriculture. ld. at 19 fig. 12. Sixty-nine percent believe "'the community's ability to provide education, health care, and social services will be impaired, or taxes will have to increase." ld. at 21 fig. 15. '" ld. at 26 fig. 2l. 100 Rural community leaders overwhelmingly believe that water transfers will lead to losses Cor "future generations" (93%); in "seeunty" (92%); in "control" (98%); in "economic opportunity" (98%); for "wildlife, natural areas and recreation amenities" (95%)j for "the state trust" (92%); in "'the local tax base" (97%); and from the "effects of retiring and abandoning farmlands" (95%). ld. at 27-31 tip. 22-1 to 22-5. lOll Id. at 35.