Laserfiche WebLink
<br />U03119 <br />dence of the need for the water. However, in the case of transfers for <br />irrigation application, benefits to the intended user are frequently over- <br />stated by the existence of price-support programs, while user demands <br />are exaggerated by the existence of large water subsidies. Howe and <br />Easter demonstrated the fact that much of the post-war expansion of <br />irrigation in the Western United States simply displaced other acreage, <br />often in the same counties. 53 That is, land was being put into the soil <br />bank program, while new irrigated acreage was being established next <br />door. Such effects extended to other parts of the country, with large <br />rainfed acreages being displaced in the Southeast and Mississippi <br />Delta. <br />Even in cases of transfer for urban uses, evidence is sometimes <br />lacking that there is a real demand for the water. For example, the <br />Windy Gap Project of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy <br />District has been completed, but the member cities don't need the <br />water and are having difficulty in meeting their project costs. 54 The <br />Central Arizona Project and the Central Utah Project are having great <br />difficulty getting cities to contract for water supplies. 55 <br /> <br />3. No One Should Be Made Worse-Off <br /> <br />This is a distributional criterion (known as the Pareto criterion). <br />It is invoked to avoid having some groups made worse-off economi- <br />cally, even when the other conditions are met. It is clear, for example, <br />that conditions (I) and (2) could be met, but that some group or <br />groups could be left worse-off than before the project. This can hap- <br />pen when water-related costs imposed on water-users or indirectly af- <br />fected groups are not directly compensated. <br /> <br />C. The Accounting Stance: Whose Costs Are to Be Counted? <br /> <br />It is necessary to define the area within which costs resulting from <br />a transfer are to be measured. These losses could occur far down- <br />stream, outside what people would ordinarily consider the basin of <br />origin. For example, if Blue River water (tributary to the upper Colo- <br />rado) is diverted to the East Slope of the Rockies, some losses might be <br />incurred on the Blue itself, some on the Colorado mainstem within the <br /> <br />53. C. HOWE & K. EASTER, INTERBASIN TRANSFERS OF WATER: ECONOMIC ISSUES AND IM- <br />PACTI 136-37 (1911). <br />54. Pierce, Cities Scrambling to Meet Payments on Water Project, Boulder Daily Camera, Feb. 21. <br />1983, at I. col. I; Pierce, Windy Gap Cost.s to Pod Longmant Bills, Boulder Daily Camera, Nov. 28. <br />1985, at 168. col. 3. <br />55. U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, REPORT TO THE HON. HOWARD M. METZENBAUM: <br />BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT AND CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT REPAY. <br />MENT ARRANGEMENTS. RCED-8S.158 (1985). <br />