Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DRAFT <br /> <br />resources may be available in considerable supply but legal and <br /> <br /> <br />institutional obstacles may constrain access. still another <br /> <br /> <br />alternative may be to meter the use of water and to increase its <br /> <br /> <br />price. Even if economically efficient, such an approach may be <br /> <br /> <br />considered politically unacceptable. Irrespective of the <br /> <br /> <br />apparent impediments, all feasible alternatives should be <br /> <br /> <br />included in this evaluation. <br /> <br />2. Benefits Must Exceed Costs. The benefits of the <br /> <br /> <br />imported water to the receiving area are apparent and will not be <br /> <br /> <br />discussed here. Instead we focus on the question of costs. Two <br /> <br /> <br />major issues are considered: determining the appropriate area in <br /> <br /> <br />which to measure costs .and defining the nature of the losses to <br /> <br /> <br />the area of origin. <br /> <br /> <br />First, one must define the area within which costs resulting <br /> <br /> <br />from a transfer are measured. From a national point of view, any <br /> <br /> <br />losses caused by the transfer should be counted as costs of the <br /> <br /> <br />project. These losses could occur far downstream, outside what <br /> <br /> <br />people would ordinarily consider the basin of origin. For <br /> <br /> <br />example, if Blue River water (tributary to the upper Colorado) is <br /> <br /> <br />diverted to the Eastern Slope of the Rockies, some losses might <br /> <br /> <br />be incurred on the Blue itself, some on the Colorado mainstem <br /> <br /> <br />within the State of Colorado, and some much further downstream, <br /> <br /> <br />possibly in Arizona and California. <br /> <br /> <br />It is a question of the "accounting stance" that is to be <br /> <br /> <br />used to quantify the benefits and costs mentioned in (I) and (2) <br /> <br />44 <br />