ABSTRACT
Water is conceived by Westerners as a coveted commodity, a worthy prize for which they are willing to engage in demanding political games, where payoffs may come only far into the future. Western water law establishes a complex hierarchy of senior and junior entitlements based on treaty, compact, contract, and historical record of use. While legal entitlement is an important resource, it is not immediately efficacious. Physical possession of water supplies, the goal of water game, typically involves the construction of storage facilities and aqueducts that redirect water from its natural course to the location of water users. Economic rationality dictates that any participant should calculate whether the expected personal benefits to be gained are larger than expected personal costs before deciding to support a project. In the game of water politics, participants sometimes strike bargains seemingly so detrimental to their interests that they appear irrational. In such cases the observer should ask what other alternatives were in fact available.
