WSP11358 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

xii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Adjudication Act and will force the recognition of some riparian surface water rights if upheld by the Texas Supreme Court. o Sporhase et al vs. Nebraska ex rel Douglas, Attorney General. This litigation is described in the preface and the decision included in its entirety as Appendix A. o El Paso v. New Mexico. No deci sion had been rendered by the federal judge in Albuquerque on thi s suit at thi s wri ti ng. But, 1 i ke the one above, El Paso is challenging the State of New Mexico's right to prohibit the movement of ground water outside the state. The decision by the Supreme Court in the Nebraska. suit may well preclude the judge's ruling in this case, or at a minimum pro- vide a precedent that cannot be ignored. The process is continuing constantly molding water law and institutions to address new demands. This framework review and assessment was carried out to determine how the institutions could adapt to five strategies identified as a portion of the Six State High Plains-Ogallala Aquifer Study to assist in maintaining the viabil ity of the Region which appears to be so dependent on the aquifer. The approach used was to assume the state and local entities would adapt to the maximum extent feasible to implement the strategies and that generally the smallest unit of government that could implement the strategies would be the most appropriate. It is bel ieved that with this approach the most "true to life" assessment would be achieved, since legislatures on the whole do not seem disposed to entirely abolish one agency and create an entirely new one to accompl ish its purposes, despite the fact that that precise situation seems to have already been described in this report. In fact, the changes in the law to create the Kansas Water Office from the Kansas Water Resources Board (KWRB), which is described in detail later, were largely superficial insofar as the authority of the new agency, vis-a-vis the KWRB.