Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DRAFT <br /> <br />--- <br />providing that quantity of water to the users;93 ~<t. <br /> <br />,I <br />(2) the benefits to the users of the transferred water must <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />exceed: <br /> <br />(a) losses to the area of origin (including downstream <br /> <br />basins to which it may be tributary); plus <br /> <br />')3 <br />(b) transfer-related construction and operation costs. <br /> <br />Although these conditions seem self-evident, they require careful <br /> <br />explication so they can be properly translated into operational <br /> <br />guidelines. <br /> <br />1. Least-Cost Source of Water Supply. Our first condition <br /> <br />for evaluating an interbasin transfer is that it should represent <br /> <br />the lowest cost source of water supply available to the importing <br /> <br />area. As discussed, such transbasin diversions entail real costs <br /> <br />to the area of origin. <br /> <br />If other, lower-cost. sources of supply <br /> <br />can be found, then they shou ld be used. <br /> <br />In either case, the. <br /> <br />benefits to the area requiring the water remain the same. <br /> <br />It is <br /> <br />simply a question of finding the least-cost means of providing <br /> <br />93These conditions closely parallel the economic criteria for <br />assessing interbasin transfers proposals suggested by the <br />National Water Commission, supra note I, at 320: <br /> <br />First, the interbasin transfer proposal <br />should be the least-cost source of water <br />supply to serve the purposes at hand. <br />Second, the value of the water in its new <br />uses should be greater than the value of <br />water in its old uses plus the cost of <br />transfer. In other words, benefits (appro- <br />priately reduced to reflect foregone future <br />use in the area of origin) should exceed <br />costs. <br /> <br />42 <br />