My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02891
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02891
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:47:31 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:25:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8407.400
Description
Platte River Basin - River Basin General Publications - Nebraska
State
NE
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
4/1/1983
Author
Nebraska Natural Res
Title
Policy Issue Study on Selected Water Rights Issues - Interstate Water Uses and Conflicts
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />to the large Indian and federal reservations <br />located in the basin, particularly in upstream <br />states. <br />Not as much is known about the situation with <br />respect to interstate ground water aquifers and <br />the movement of groundwater interstate. The <br />problem is not as acute in most areas, however, <br />due to the large amount of groundwater in <br />storage as a whole. Reference is made to <br />groundwater's relationship to surface flows in <br />two existing interstate compacts, the Upper <br />Niobrara and Blue River compacts, but no inter- <br />state apportionments have been made. <br />Very little activity in the area of weather modifi- <br />cation has occurred in the state in recent years. <br />Surrounding states have been experimenting <br />with precipitation enhancement and hail sup- <br />pression and there may be possibilities for inter- <br />state cooperation in this regard. <br /> <br />RESOLVING INTERSTATE <br />CONFLICTS <br /> <br />Examples of interstate water use are numer- <br />ous, and include the Narrows Unit, coal slurry <br />pipelines, and the Grayrocks Dam. So too are the <br />possibilities that conflicts may develop between <br />states somewhere along the line. There are three <br />commonly recognized methods of resolving in- <br />terstate disputes: (1) adjudication, (2) con- <br />gressional legislation, and (3) voluntary agree- <br />ment. <br />Litigation between two or more states always <br />occurs in the United States Supreme Court. <br />Water users other than states may not sue in the <br />first instance in the U.S. Supreme Court, but they <br />may be able to bring suit in a state court orfederal <br />district court. This method of dispute settlement <br />is often used "as a last resort" or as a coercive <br />measure. For those interstate water disputes <br />reaching the Supreme Court, the court has gen- <br />erally applied the doctrine of equitable appor- <br />tionment. It is based on the principle of priority of <br />appropriation applied interstate and provided <br />the basis for the decree apportioning the surface <br />flows of the North Platte River. While priority of <br />appropriation is the guiding principle, other <br />factors are also considered, including: physical <br />and climatic conditions, various consumptive <br />uses along the river, the character and rate of <br />return flows, the extent of established uses, and <br />the availability of storage water. In some cases, <br />the U.S. Supreme Court may appoint a special <br />master to act as its representative by holding <br />hearings, gathering evidence, making findings <br />and a report, and offering recommendations to <br />the Court on the questions presented. <br />The U.S. Supreme Court's suitability to hear <br />interstate water cases is limited for a number of <br /> <br />VI <br /> <br />reasons. For one, the Court's exercise of juris- <br />diction is restricted to those questions which are <br />actual cases or controversies. The Court has also <br />imposed some restrictive qualifications on itself, <br />even where jurisdiction may exist. For another, <br />the questions involved in interstate disputes are <br />often delicate and complicated, touching upon <br />the vital interests of quasi-sovereign states, and <br />may be better resolved by mutual agreement <br />between the parties. <br />Congressional legislation is another option for <br />resolving disputes between states. The Boulder <br />Canyon Project Act, which authorized Hoover <br />Dam, was probably one of the more extensive <br />congressional enactments to directly affect in- <br />terstate water use. It was an attempt to resolve <br />the conflict which then existed over the appor- <br />tionment of the waters of the Colorado River. <br />The Water ResourcesPlanning Act of 1965 is <br />another example of congressional legislation <br />which had an impact on reducing interstate water <br />conflicts. It encouraged states to establish <br />regional management authorities for interstate <br />river systems. It established a federal water <br />resources council and a framework of regional <br />river basin commissions and financial assist- <br />ance. The goal was to coordinate the planning <br />activities of the various federal agencies and the <br />states. A numberof river basin commissions have <br />now been terminated by President Reagan. <br />Other pieces of federal legislation which could <br />have an impact on interstate water use include <br />the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental <br />Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act. <br />One of the problems associated with seeking <br />congressional legislation to resolve an interstate <br />water conflict is that it can be a lengthy process. It <br />is often hampered by the fact that there are fifty <br />states, each with strong state interests in con- <br />trolling their own water resources. <br />The third method, the interstate compact, is <br />probably preferred in most instances because it <br />reflects the voluntary agreement of the parties <br />involved. A number of interstate compacts have <br />been negotiated between states allocating the <br />waters of an interstate stream. The authority for <br />the formation of these agreements or compacts <br />is found in the U.S. Constitution, which requires <br />the consent of Congress before they become <br />effective. <br />The interstate compact has three major ad- <br />vantages as a way of resolving interstate water <br />allocation problems. First, it provides a frame- <br />work for dealing with complicated interstate allo' <br />cation questions. Second, it provides increased <br />flexibility for dealing with possible changes in <br />conditions in the future. Finally, it can provide <br />expert administration to deal with the technical <br />issues involved in interstate water management. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.