Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1986] <br /> <br />ARE."'.OF.ORIGIN PROTECTIOl' <br /> <br />5~7 <br /> <br /> <br />:i3.11y ....aluable uses of thai water. Such limitations unwisely reduce <br />:he opBons available for use of scarce water resources. <br />.-\ number of stutes engage in some form of allocation of water <br />resources as a means of protecting the future water needs of areas of <br />origin, The California Ilction of aSSigning a permanent priority to the <br />are3. oi origin for c~rtain categories of ~:<poned water injects a signifi- <br />cant element of uncertainty into the system. because water users <br />within the area or origin presumably may recall water regardless of the <br />comparative values of water use within and outside the basin. Given <br />the investment in the water export infrastructure and the dependence <br />of the place of use on the water supplies, a recall of water would likely <br />be met with vigorous resistance. <br />Reservation of some share of water for unknown future needs of <br />an area of origin at least permItS the pOSSible transfer of water deter- <br />mined not to be necessary, However, it makes such water exports con- <br />tingent on a largely speculative analySlS of future development in the <br />area of origin. Also it suggests a false dichotomy between "necessary" <br />water and "surplus" water, The necessary Water is absolutely pro- <br />tected irrespective of the comparative values of use, while the surplus <br />water is assum~d to be wllhout protecrable value, <br />There is some movemenr row.1rd providing for a swte-level evalu- <br />allon of interbasin water transfers based on a number of criteria. The <br />elfect is to subject each proposed transfer to a general cost-benefit type <br />of analysis, No artificial restrictions or reservations of water are in- <br />volved. The method of evalu:uion. including the standard applied and <br />the weight given to the various factors. becomes critical under such an <br />approach. Significant transacl\on costs may result from the evaluation <br />process, <br />Permi[[ing exports of water subject to the payment of appropriate <br />compensation offers several important advantages, It recognizes that <br />removal of water from an area imposes real costs and that offsetting <br />payments may be devised that will benefit the exporting area and leave <br />it at leas! as well off as before the diversion. It promotes better use of <br />society's resources by insuring that the full costs of the transaction are <br />known. [t avoids artificial limitations on the use of water. <br />The major problems in devising an effective compensation system <br />center around determining an appropriate payment. The California <br />approach under the Burns-Porter Act makes no real attempt to relate <br />the funds the" ore pro\ iJod to the COSlS of Water export. Colorado's <br />..:ompcnSall)ry "i(lr:..l~C ;c4ulrcmcO[ h:.ls brg,-'I~ restfH.:tc:d l:ompe-nsation <br />[Q Ih~ conS[rUC:lon of JJ.m~ ~lnd hJ:-. ...:auscd such Jams to be (,;on- <br />