Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001542 <br /> <br />~~t:I; <br /> <br />tit':} <br />. ,......;l <br />''''M>~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In the absence of a compact, the flexible principles of <br />equitable apportionment (principles which may in the future place <br /> <br />less emphasis on prior appropriation and more on the weighing of <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the relative harms and benefits to competing States) may well have <br />permitted interstate water marketing to help secure an equitable <br />sharing of the economic benefits of the Colorado River. See <br /> <br />Richard Simms, supra at p. 560. <br /> <br />Moreover, the ten year old decision by the Uni ted states <br /> <br />Supreme Court in Sporhase v. Nebraska, 458 U.S. 941 (1982) <br /> <br />confirming that groundwater is an article of interstate commerce <br /> <br />and protected from unjustified state regulations, would have <br /> <br />encouraged the expansion of interstate marketing. in the Colorado <br /> <br />River. <br /> <br />Indeed, the policy of promoting free trade under the <br /> <br />mandate of the Commerce Clause recognizes market forces should be <br /> <br />encouraged .to play an expanded role in the allocation of water <br /> <br />resources. <br /> <br />See, Arthur H. Chan, "TO Market or Not to Market.: <br /> <br />Allocation of Interstate Waters." <br /> <br />Natural Resources Journal, <br /> <br />Spring 1989, p. 529. <br /> <br />As noted above, the transfer of water rights in the west has <br /> <br />increased substantially during the past two decades. <br /> <br />Those <br /> <br />intrastate developments set forth a road map for how Colorado River <br /> <br />interstate transfers would look. <br /> <br />For example, in 1982, 100 <br /> <br />transfer applications were filed in California, Colorado, Idaho, <br /> <br />Kansas; Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Utah. See Johnson'and Dumars <br /> <br />16 <br />