Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DRAFT <br /> <br />ing the wide variation in political interests within these <br /> <br />states. <br /> <br />We believe that there are legitimate interests that should <br /> <br />be accounted for in interbasin transfers which are not suffi- <br /> <br />ciently reccgnized under the traditional appropriation doctrine. <br /> <br />Ina very real sense there is no such thing as "surplus" watei.7 <br /> <br />A watershed is permanently changed when its natural flow is <br /> <br />diverted and removed. The full costs associated with this change <br /> <br />must be accounted for and included in the cost of the diversion. <br /> <br />In the absence of a market that gives the appropriate price <br /> <br />signals, statutorily created, mechanisms are needed. We turn next <br /> <br />to a review of the various approaches that have been taken. <br /> <br />IV. TYPES OF PROTECTION <br /> <br />Area of origin protection methods can be divided into three <br /> <br />general categories: <br /> <br />prohibition or severe restriction; alloca- <br /> <br />t ion; and compensa t ion. <br /> <br />It is important to note that the <br /> <br />approaches taken often involve some mixture of methods from among <br /> <br />these categories. <br /> <br />A. Prohibition or Severe Restriction <br /> <br />The most extreme form of protection is, of course, to <br /> <br />prohibit such transfers. Examples may be found in some jurisdic- <br /> <br />tions following the riparian doctrine and in the former law of <br /> <br />7Nevertheless, <br />accompanying note 30 <br /> <br />see the Oklahoma definition cited <br />infra. <br /> <br />in te x t <br /> <br />6 <br />