WSP01433 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STUDY #3 GROUNDWATER RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT The only apparent relationship between this study and the Groundwater Reservoir Manage- ment Study relates to the question of whether natural or induced groundwater recharge from streamflow should be recognized as a valid ripar- ian claim. An affirmative decision would provide protection to groundwater reservoirs dependent upon such recharge. STUDY #4 WATER USE EFFICIENCY The relationship between this study and the Water Use Efficiency Study is not significant. None of the alternatives in this report address water use efficiency directly and efficiency in use would probably not be a criterion for whether or not a particular riparian right ought to be in- tegrated into the appropriations system. STUDY #5 SELECTED WATER RIGHT ISSUES Drainage of Diffused Surface Water. No signifi- cant relationships with this study have been identified. Preferences in the Use of Water. This study and the study on Preferences in the Use of Water are related in at least two ways. First, two of the alternatives in this study (2d and 3d) would restrict registration and/or adjudication of riparian rights to uses listed within the prefer- ences system. Preferences therefore become critical to whether or not particular uses will be recognized in any action modifying the nature of riparian rights. The second way in which the preferences report and this report are related is in regard to administration of riparian rights once they have been integrated into the appropriative system. It is generally believed that riparian rights neither benefit from nor are subject to preferences. At least one Nebraska case would indicate that an exception to this rule may be made for domestic uses (Brummond v. Vogel, 184 Neb. 415, 168 N.W.2d 24 (1969)). At any rate, once integrated into the appropriative rights system, a previous riparian right would be able to exercise a prefer- ence against inferior uses and would also be sUbject to exercise of a preference by superior uses. Water Rights Adjudication. This study is closely related to both Parts I and II of the Water Rights AdjUdication Study. Part I of the report for that 5-2 study deals with the cancellation of water rights for non-use. Riparian rights are not subject to forfeiture for lack of use and can lie dormant for many years. If integrated into the appropriative system (Alternative #3), riparian rights would thereafter be subject to cancellation the same as any other unused appropriative right. Alternative #3 of this report calls forthe adjudi- cation of riparian rights claims. Part II of the Water Rights Adjudication Report deals speCifically with adjudication of previously unquantified rights like riparian rights, federal reserved rights and Indian water rights. If Alternative #3 in this report were implemented, adjudication of all riparian claims would be required and new pro- cedures might need to be established for this pu rpose. Property Rights in Groundwater. No significant relationships with this study have been identi- fied. Interstate Water Uses and Conflicts. Alterna- tive #3 and particularly Alternative #4 would result in an increase in the numberof established claims to water in Nebraska. Even if this increase did not result in an increase in the actual amount of water used, the recognition of these additional claims could enhance Nebraska's rights to allo- cation of interstate waters. Transferability of Water Rights. Implementa- tion of Alternative #3 would increase the number of appropriations in the State of Nebraska. If surface water rights were also made transfer- able, as will be addressed by the study on that subject, more water rights would be available for transfer to other locations or other uses. It would also be true, however, that a greater number of water rights would have to be taken into account when a proposed transfer was being considered for approval. Beneficial Use. While these two studies do not appear to be directly related to each other, they do address many of the same issues. For example, both require a decision on what types of uses constitute beneficial uses of water. Both also address a question of actual use of water and its effect on the validity of any claims to that use. STUDY #6 MUNICIPAL WATER NEEDS There is a limited relationship between this study and the one on Municipal Water Needs. Depending upon which of the subalternatives would be selected, Alternative #3 could increase the demand on surface water supplies, and con- sequently reduce the amount of recharge to municipal well fields relying on instream flows. However, muniCipal water supplies could benefit