Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00098~, <br /> <br />water transfers or reallocation to municipal use.should be encouraged. These participants <br /> <br /> <br />suggested other cost/benefit considerations may warrant the rcviev.: of proposed transfers not <br /> <br /> <br />only by the district board but also by some external entity as a safeguard to protect community <br /> <br />as well as commodity values. Moreover, it may be that the rural poor do not possess adequate <br /> <br /> <br />political resources to protect their water. <br /> <br />Some concern was also voiced with respeCt to .the role of transfers in encouraging urban <br /> <br /> <br />sprawl. We may risk creating more cities like Los Angeles if mechanisms for wat'er transfers <br /> <br /> <br />encourage urban growth, Should transfers from rural to urban areas be an option of last resort <br /> <br /> <br />rather than first? Should cities first be required to implement conservation measures? Should <br /> <br /> <br />all conserved water go to urban growth? Moreover, should water become a growth <br /> <br />management tool? <br /> <br />On the idea of transfers as an alternative to new water projects, there is one view that <br /> <br />many urban legislators do not want to admit (or agree with environmental groups) that transfer <br /> <br />is a viable alternative to new projects because to do so would undermine the need for <br /> <br /> <br />traditional water projects. In this way, it is argued, urban legislators may be looking at transfers <br /> <br /> <br />in the same traditional sense as rural legislators; they are a last resort because of mitigation <br /> <br /> <br />problems. <br /> <br />3 <br />