7913

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7913
• Author: Freshwater Society.
• Title: Water Management in Transition, 1985.
• USFW Year: 1985.
• USFW - Doc Type: Navarre, MN.
• Copyright Material: YES

State lines are no longer
barriers to the transfer of
water.

The willingness to pay for
water opens up a whole new
way to divide water.

Is it morally right for
individuals or companies to
make money from the sale
of a commodity as essential
to life as water?

The District Court found part of the new legislation invalid but sustained most
of it, and the 326 applications by EI Paso for wells in New Mexico are now pending
before the State Engineer, and the decision on the granting or denial of those
well applications will come in due time.

. . . and the Implications

What does all this mean to anybody?

It means that state lines are no longer barriers to the transfer of water. It means
that the so-called "state ownership" of water is a fiction. It means that, while
movement of water interstate can be restricted "to conserve and preserve for
its own citizens this vital resource in times of severe shortage," the legislation
must be even-handed in its application to residents as well as non-residents.

The Sporhase and El Paso decisions have rekindled interest in interstate water sales.
Water has been sold and re-sold intrastate for a profit for years, but interstate
sales for profit are now being envisioned. Many water agencies take the position
that unneeded water should not be the source of profit but should be available
for those who are in need. One proposal in particular has stirred up controversy
along the Colorado River.

Selling Water for Profit

An article in the January 16, 1985, issue of the Rocky Mountain News reports that
investors called the Galloway Group, Ltd., plan to deliver water from
northwestern Colorado to San Diego.

The general manager of the San Diego County Water Authority was quoted in
an article in the Los Angeles Times on January 6, 1985, as saying:

The idea isn't going to go away, especially when potential sellers out there
see how much money we're promising. The willingness to pay for water
opens up a whole new way to divide water.

The proposed purchase of water has brought San Diego into sharp conflict with
the powerful Metropolitan Water District, the current supplier of water to both
the Los Angeles and San Diego areas. The Times article states:

Agencies should not consider paying a price for water that includes a profit
for the seller, according to the argument of the MWD and other
traditionalists. In particular, MWD and its allies fear that the willingness of
San Diego to buy water hurts the chances of Southern California to convince
the northern half of the state to permit additional development of the State
Water Project.

Galloway is also negotiating with other prospective purchasers in California, Utah
and Arizona.

The C lorado Water Conservation Board and state agencies in the Colorado River
Basin tates oppose the private water supply plan. Litigation seems inevitable.

More uestions Than Answers

The Ie islature of New Mexico, when faced with the ElPaso decision, created a
water I w study committee. The first recommendation of that committee's report,
submi ted in July 1984, is the following:

The state should make every effort possible to have the Congress of the
Unit d States act in some way to allow New Mexico to maintain its water
res urces within its boundaries.

Will th Congress enact the kind of law New Mexico wants? Should it? Or should
the m rketplace determine who gets the water?

15