|
<br />;~ci
<br />
<br />c','rVERSlTY OF COLORADO U,w REVIEW
<br />
<br />[Vol. 57
<br />
<br />t
<br />!
<br />.
<br />,
<br />!
<br />;
<br />
<br />categories of lost income and amenities are. (a) future net income that
<br />wouid be generated directly and indlrectly in the basin by future diver-
<br />sion uses of currently unused waters: (bl currem and future values and
<br />incomes d,recrly and indlrectly associated With insueam uses: and (c)
<br />losses [0 the general public from deterioration of public services and
<br />quality of life,
<br />2. Compensation should not be resrricted to construction of and
<br />fundmg for water swrage. Payment should be made to agencies nor
<br />raced with this constraint if possible. i,e. to units of general
<br />government.
<br />], Compensation should not aim at keeping the price of water in
<br />the basin of origin below its real scarcity value,
<br />... If water storage is the most efficient form of compensation
<br />from the area of origin's viewpoint, construction of the storage facili-
<br />ties should be delayed until they are actually needed, The proper pay-
<br />mem would be lhe present value of the planning, filing, land
<br />acquisition. and construction costs,
<br />5. The amount of compensatIon paid to losing parties should be
<br />based on the assumption that those parties will act rationally to adapt
<br />to the new water supply situatIon-that they will undertake all cost-
<br />effective steps to minimize their income losses in the face of dimin-
<br />ished water supplies, Compensation should then equal the sum of
<br />these mitigation costS pills residual damages,
<br />6, These principles should be applied to all out-of-basm trans.
<br />fers. regardless of the nnrure of the exporting agency,
<br />
<br />I
<br />i
<br />
<br />i '
<br />.
<br />, ,
<br />
<br />,
<br />.
<br />i '
<br />I'
<br />
<br />VI. CONCLUSION
<br />
<br />In many areas of the United States. particularly in (he West, local
<br />supplies of Water are insufficient to meet demand. The prior appropria-
<br />tion doctrine recognizes the value of allowing water, like other re-
<br />sources. to be moved to locations where it can be applied to a
<br />beneficial use, Nevenheless, restrictions on the movement of Water
<br />out of the area of origin exist in a number of states,
<br />The consequences of absolute restrictions on the transfer of Water
<br />for use off riparian lands has caused some eastern states to move in the
<br />direction of an appropriation rights system."' The Nebraska prohibi-
<br />flon against interbasin transfers has now been (ejected, It is generally
<br />recognized that rigid limitations on the manner and circumstances
<br />undc::r which water rra.nsfers may occur unnecessarily restrict paten.
<br />
<br />i,
<br />
<br />",-r., ,,~,~. 1 :'~:",II;'" I"",., ." "t'1c' ,',If1\<"r'I,'n ,q f(,\'.lr'.lI1 R'~I1I' ')\"<"'fh to
<br />
<br />p.. 'T \~r:,'rC;.\l ", ",I..:~:, ,I ':: :,: ;-~'J.. ':Il:r'U":I.,:~;J .':1.mlh."r\rl LJI"! InJ ....llllr.!1 R..:".tlrCe_
<br />l)1'l'O,\fl.L::i [):::-: '( 'U'II',"
<br />
<br />,
<br />
|