Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"-, <br />~l <br /> <br />i ", <br />! ,:_~'j <br />,1J <br /> <br />An Overview of the Basin's Resource-Management Problems <br /> <br />-".; <br /> <br />By concluding that the existing laws, rules, and institutions are biased <br />toward commodity-related demands, we do not conclude that the entire <br />system must be thrown out to facilitate shifting resources from low-value to <br />high-value uses. The system can be made more flexible. Much of the effort <br />devoted to the governance of water allocation has focused on guaranteeing <br />certainty regarding allocation and, thus, encouraging private investment in <br />resource-development. Many observers have concluded that the resulting <br />laws and institutions do not necessarily have to result in the production of <br />commodities (Bates et al. 1993). They argue that the legal framework does <br />not require that water forever be put to original, commodity-oriented uses, <br />but instead guarantees that those who first put the water to a recognized <br />beneficial use can rely on the continuation of stream conditions regardless of <br />who comes to develop water later. Thus, the tendency for resources to <br />become voluntarily stuck in low-value uses when higher-value uses <br />materialize is less the certainty ofthe law and more the inflexibility of its <br />implementation. Ifinstream flows were fully protected as a beneficial use, <br />for example, conservation groups and recreationists would be able to use the <br />legal framework the same as other water users by acquiring senior water <br />rights, dedicating them to instream uses, and having those uses receive the <br />same protections as others. <br /> <br />'.', <br /> <br />';"-'. <br /> <br />,:,-J <br /> <br />,';' <br /> <br />,or, <br /> <br />!,i. <br />,~-'1 <br />:"-,. <br /> <br />~, <br />~';i <br />:::~ <br /> <br />.") <br /> <br />Some flexibility is already apparent. Standard practice within the Forest <br />Service and Bureau of Land Management has long favored conventional <br />uses, such as grazing and logging, over new competing uses, such as <br />recreation and ecosystem restoration, but changes are occurring and more is <br />promised (Dombeck 1996). Although each of the three states favors water <br />uses that withdraw water from the stream over instream uses-with New <br />Mexico the extreme case, providing no protection whatsoever for instream <br />uses-officials in each state are seeking ways to afford greater instream <br />protection. The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), <br />which previously held that its actions were considered beyond the reach of <br />the nation's environmental laws, now acknowledges that it must comply with <br />these laws. The CoE and the BuRec have broadened their focus somewhat to <br />incorporate additional environmental concerns into their programs. The <br />MRGCD has developed a Water Policies Plan that explicitly recognizes the <br />importance of the public goods derived from its operations. <br /> <br />" <br />-.:, <br />" <br />>, <br /> <br />Much more flexibility is needed, however, if the Basin's legal and <br />institutional structure is to make significant strides toward meeting the <br /> <br />(,C2965 <br /> <br />85 <br />