|
<br />1'-
<br />
<br />'"~
<br />, ,
<br />
<br />C'!
<br />N
<br />
<br />c
<br />
<br />IF
<br />'i
<br />")
<br />
<br />~
<br />!
<br />I
<br />
<br />162 J. ENERGY, NAT. RESOURCES, & ENVTL. L. [Vol. 13
<br />
<br />water markets, and discusses how the CUP legislation overcame these
<br />factors to reshape Utah's water policies.12
<br />Part II of this Comment explores the institutional, social, and
<br />psychological barriers that have stood in the way of creating effective
<br />water markets, Part ill describes the history of the CUP and analyzes
<br />the substantive solutions that have resolved a water conflict in Utah.
<br />The farmers, environmentalists, and urban representatives were able
<br />to come together and draft innovative solutions that overcame the
<br />impediments to water law refonns. Their solution is II hybrid alterna-
<br />tive to unfettered water markets, implementing standards and
<br />regulations for water conservation as well as simulating market
<br />incentives for better water management. Part IV lays out two
<br />important lessons of the CUP. First, public policy leaders should not
<br />rely on a single idealized approach to water reform. Rather, a
<br />combination of various proposals, tailored to the specific needs of the
<br />affected parties, has a greater chance of success. The CUP's water
<br />management program is one example that combines market-based
<br />incentives, government regulation, and judicial enforcement through
<br />civilian lawsuits. The second lesson is that an open process of water
<br />management and planning helps make these creative solutions possible.
<br />The CUP is the first example of total resource planning for a federal
<br />reclamation project. Through cooperation, adverse parties were able to
<br />identifY the range of opportunity for all potential resources. As a result,
<br />the water management programs which they developed may become
<br />models for resolving water conflicts in the 1990s.
<br />
<br />;1
<br />.~
<br />t
<br />,
<br />.,
<br />,'I
<br />
<br />.J
<br />
<br />:;,
<br />,~
<br />
<br />,
<br />,
<br />
<br />'.
<br />i
<br />f
<br />,
<br />
<br />
<br />III This Comment will not discuss the Ute Indian Tribe Rights Settlement, which is contained
<br />in title V of the Reclemetion Projects Authorizetion and Adjustment Act of 1992, Pub. L, No.
<br />102-575, 106 Stat. 4600 (1992). The settlement ratifies a compact between the State of Utah
<br />and the Ute Indian Tribe resolving long~8tanding water and financial claims against the United
<br />States. arising from a 1965 agreement that the Tribe would receive a large water project in the
<br />future if the Tribe would defer using weter on the Tribe's irrigeble lands until 2005. Daniel
<br />McCool, TM NorlMrn Uu'. Lo"ll Wour Ordeal, HIGH COUNTRY NEWS, July 15, 1991, et 1. Far
<br />a history orthe CUP negotiations concerning the Deferral Agreement of 1965, Bee Lee Davidson.
<br />Ute LeatUr. DinIU. Water I..ue., Project. in Private D.C. Meeting., DESERET NEWS (Salt Lab
<br />City), Oct. 5, 1989, at 81; Christopber Smart, Nulaon Fr..traud by Uu. Revo/oi"ll '65 Wotar .'.
<br />Pact, SALT LAKE TRJB., Sept, 22, 19S9, at 81; Christopher Smart, Uu. Decl",.. 1965 CUP Wotar
<br />Ag,.......nt Void, SALT LAKE TRJB" Sept. 21, 1989, at 81.
<br />
<br />
|