- 31 -
the unused water in the future; on the contrary, as we explained
above, irrigation use was expected to decrease. The unused water
was available to be sold or leased by petitioner at any time and
had value as of the valuation date that must be included in our
analysis. Respondent argues that it was foreseeable that the
LCRA would be the most likely purchaser of petitioner’s water
right and that the LCRA would be willing to pay up to $600
million for the water because its alternative was to spend $600
million for a new reservoir. Respondent also argues that there
was merely a remote chance that approval would not be obtained
for a sale of the unused water because it was obvious that no
harm would be caused by a transfer. Petitioner contends that
because there were no active purchasers pursuing its water at the
valuation date, there was no market at all for the unused water,
and it was not foreseeable that it would be sold. We believe
that at the valuation date, a reasonable prediction fell
somewhere between the parties’ respective positions.
Any sale or transfer of the unused water outside the
Colorado River Basin or for nonirrigation use would face the same
regulatory hurdles that were present in the Corpus Christi
transaction. Any future sale of the unused water would also face
legislative risk and would presumably be subject to any changes
made by the 1997 legislature. In addition, because there were no
active buyers for the unused water as of the valuation date, a
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011