Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />On the other hand, it is impossible to define privately <br />owned rights to the use of water that is left in a stream. <br />This stems primarily from the fact that water in a natural <br />stream is a "fugitive" resource, the benefits of which cannot <br />be realized by one person to the exclusion of all others (i.e., <br />instream uses yield "public benefits" or "public interest <br />values"). Thus, until 1973, instream uses of water, and the <br />values associated with such uses, were not accounted for by our <br />water rights system. <br /> <br />A corollary problem exists when the impacts, or costs, <br />which water diversions and impoundments impose on some are not <br />compensated for. For example, since private property rights <br />are generally not attached to fish and wildlife resources, <br /> <br />those who enjoy such resources are not paid by those engaged in <br /> <br /> <br />water development for the right to "use" the affected fish and <br /> <br />wildlife resources (as, for example, with the irreversible <br /> <br />commitment of fish and wildlife habitat to a reservoir). <br /> <br />Similarly, not all impacts on the basin-of-origin resulting <br /> <br /> <br />from transbasin diversions are necessarily accounted for by the <br /> <br /> <br />marketplace, there being equity considerations which are not <br /> <br />reflected in the cost of developing such diversions. Finally, <br /> <br />water quality effects are another good example of this problem. <br /> <br />In short, these are instances in which the marketplace is <br /> <br />unable to fully account for all of the values associated with <br /> <br />-11- <br />