9377

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9377
• Author: Colorado Water Workshop.
• Title: 16th Annual Colorado Water Workshop.
• USFW Year: 1991.
• USFW - Doc Type: Western State College.
• Copyright Material: NO

..

page 5

Allowing marketed water to flow downstream first also makes it much
easier to cope with the host of environmental isslIes related t.o slIch things
as water quality, sediment transport, wetlands, floodplain and riparian
management, and instream flows.

5. Water Quality ---- An open market for water wi.ll moti.vate
maintenance and improvement of water quality. Higher quality water can be
used in more ways and will carry a higher value in the market. Those
buying the water will have a strong interest in seeing that the quality
remains appropriate for its intended use. Water quality control will
become somewhat self-fulfilling.

D. Possibilities

1. Process ---- Those pioneering processes surveyed by Larry for
dealing with local compensation and mitigation seem limited in scope and
cumbersome~ As one of his sources observed, both the display of i.mpacts
and a decision rule are needed. Markets appreciate simplicity and
creativity.
At the risk of misrepresenting someone else's idea, I would commend
for consideration Senator Bob Pastore's proposal circulated for discussion
last winter. In short it provides for local voter approval in the district
of origin for any water transfer outside of the.district.
This is a simple rule but it accomplishes many things. It allows
local and individual interpretation of impacts. It allows reflection of
user and use diversity. It encourages the proponent's creativity in
devising a mitigation package. Most likely it will not be a
"one-size-fi ts-all" package but rather it will reflect the particular needs
and desires of the affected community and concerned interests. All this
appears to increase local significance and clout, improve distributional
equity of harms and benefits, and promote adjustment to change through a
learning process for individuals and the community.

2. Other Approaches ---- There are two other approaches deserving
consideration. One is application of the Colorado Joint Review Process.
This has the advantages of being designed to involve anyone interested, of
being conducted locally, and coordinating the pevmitting requirements. The
other approach was suggested recently by Joseph Sax in a discussion paper.
This is to remove the special treatment given to water rights as a kind of
special super-property and deal with a water transfer and change of use
within the zoning processes.

3. Protectionism ---- Finally, with a water market comes the
possibility of eliminating the intense state protectionism displayed
against interstate commerce in water. A consequence of this protectionism
is the exclusion from participation in a market of the smaller water users
to the benefit of the large well established water interests. If
transferred water is to move downstream first and then be sent to its
destination through something equivalent to a common carrler, then
participation and access to markets can be expanded - whether they are
interstate, across the mountains, or local. In turn this brings most of
the proceeds from the transaction back to the community from where the
water began its journey.