WSP09853 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0031" 3 L 3. Evaluation by Public Standards A third general allocation method is to evaluate transbasin diver- sions on the basis of a number of general standards. Reservation of water for future use in the area of origin is not involved. Public-inter- est evaluation is common in appropriation states following the permit system, where water rights are established through application to the appropriate state agency. While the requirements vary considerably from state to state, in each case certain conditions must be met. 34 In some states, specific provisions address interbasjn transfers. A 198 I Nebraska statute specifically subjects all proposed interbasin transfers to "public interest" review by the Director of Water Re- sources.35 A number of factors are listed for consideration, though others also may be raised: 1. The economic, environmental, and other benefits of the pro- posed interbasin transfer and use; 2, Any adverse impacts of the proposed interbasin transfer and use; 3. Any current beneficial uses being made of the unappropriated water in the basin of origin; 4. Any reasonably foreseeable future beneficial uses of water in the basin of origin; 5. The economic, environmental, and other benefits of leaving the water in the basin of origin for current or future beneficial uses; 6. Alternative sources of water supply available to the applicant; and 7. Alternative sources of water available to the basin of origin for future beneficial uses"6 A cost-benefit analysis from the state perspective is to be undertaken, and the application is to be denied "if the benefits to the state from granting the application do not outweigh the benefits to the state from denying the application. "37 34. For example, In slate" like WYOnllllg the con..iderations are limited 10 a demonstration fhal the diversion of wilIer is taking place and thai the waler is being applied to a recognized beneficial use. See Wolfe. Administering WOler Riglw: The Permir Sysrem. paper prc=sented at Western Water Law in Transition Conference (Natural Resources Law Center, University or Colorado. June 3-5,1985). Other states address a broader set of considerations including, in some cases, a general "public inleresl" stan- dard. Sei!, e.g., ALASKA STA"I ~ 46.15.080 (1982); NEB. REV. STAT. S 46.235 (1984); N.M. STAT. ANN. ! 72-5-7 (1978). 35. NEB. REV. STAT. 946-289 (IQ84). 36. Id. 37. [d. Kansns passed u law in 198J thaI follow!> u very similar approach respecting all rropo..~d diversions of al least 1,000 acre-feel of ......afer per yenr for use more than 10 miles from the poinl of diversion. KAN. STAT. ANN ~9 82<1-1501 10 -1506 (19!l4). One additional factor of inferest is ''l.:olls..:r- valian practice implement<ltion plane;. for the u"t" of water currently available 10 and being uSl..'d by the applicant and for the uc;.e of the water propo<.,ed 10 be transferred:' Id. ~ 82<1-1 S03(d)(6)