ABSTRACT
Professor Blomquist favoured a local, communal-property system, where internal rights to use water could be traded within the community, a key advantage being that this system would react to changes in demand faster than even an efficient bureaucracy. Blomquist’s compromise seemed attractive to many of the participants on both sides of the debate. Indeed, it showed that the key enemy to both schools of thought is centralization of water control and over interference by government. Apart from setting environmental and equity requirements most parties agreed that the government should have a limited role to play in water allocation.
