Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I' U . " l~ <br />. lj-1.. <br /> <br />River. and authorized the construction of the <br />Hoover Dam. One of the principal issues con- <br />cerned the allocation and apportionment of the <br />lower basin's share of water among the States 01 <br />California. Arizona. and Nevada. The Court con- <br />cluded that "It]he Secretary ollhe Interior could <br />make contracts for the sale and delivery of water <br />stored in Lake Mead above Hoover Dam. and the <br />use of such waters was prohibited without such a <br />contract:,11 <br /> <br />Non-Exportation Laws <br /> <br />The controversy surrounding the coal slurry <br />pipeline issue emphasizes the concern states <br />have about sharing the water within their borders <br />with other states. "As sources of supply become <br />increasingly critical, states are raising jurisdiC- <br />tional barriers to water exportations; and lor the <br />first time, questions are being raised as to the <br />right of the state to preempt the use 01 water <br />either directly by legislative proscriptions on <br />extra-territorial diversions, or Indirectly by <br />narrow definitions of lawful beneficial uses."12 <br />In an effort to conserve and protect their <br />groundwater resources. a number of states have <br />enacted statutes that prohibit the exportation of <br />water, either absolutely or under certain con- <br />ditions. For example, the City of EI Paso, Texas <br />has brought suit against New Mexico in federal <br />court seeking to have a New Mexico statute <br />which prohibits the exportation of groundwater <br />declared unconslitutional.13 Two Nebraska <br />landowners appealed to the United States <br />Supreme Court to reverse a decision of the <br />Nebraska Supreme Court upholding the con- <br />stitutionality of a state statute prohibiting the <br />exportation of groundwater to a state which does <br />not grant similar reciprocal privileges in State ex. <br />reI. Doug/as v. Sporhase.14 The United States <br />Supreme Court reversed this decision holding <br />that the reCiprocity requirement violated the <br />Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as <br />being an unreasonable burden on interstate <br />commerce.15 <br />There are clearly a number of factors influenc- <br />ing the validity of restrictions in non-exportation <br />statutes. The U.S. Supreme Court's determin- <br />ation that water is an article of commerce re- <br />quires that state groundwater regulations not be <br />unreasonable burdens on commerce. The con- <br />servation and preservation of diminishing <br />sources of groundwater was recognized by the <br />Court as legitimate and important aspects of <br />groundwater regulation. The Court goes on to <br />say that. <br />The State's interest in conservation and <br />preservation 01 groundwater is advanced by <br />the first three conditions in 946-613.01 lor <br /> <br />the withdrawal 01 water lor an interstate <br />transfer. Those requirements are that the <br />withdrawal of the groundwater requested is <br />reasonable, is not contrary to the conser- <br />vation and use of groundwater, and is not <br />otherwise detrimental to the public <br />welfare. 16 <br />The Court further suggests that. <br />If it could be shown that the State as a <br />whole suffers a water shortage. that the <br />intrastate transportation of water from areas <br />of abundance to areas of shortage is feasi- <br />ble regardless of distance. and Ihat the <br />importation of water from adjoining States <br />would roughly compensate for any exporta- <br />tion to those States, then the Conservation <br />and preservation purpose might be credibly <br />advanced lor the reCiprocity provision. A <br />demonstrably arid state conceivably might <br />be able to marshall eviaence to establish a <br />close means-end relationship between <br />even a total ban on the exportation 01 water <br />and a purpose 10 conserve and preserve <br />water.17 <br />The particular language of Ihese statutes and <br />their impact on interstate commerce will be <br />strictty scrutinized to determine if they are <br />facially discriminatory. <br /> <br />Grayrocks <br /> <br />The Grayrocks Dam and Reservoir are located <br />on the mainstem of the Laramie River, 10 miles <br />upstream from the mouth, a major tributary of the <br />North Platte River in Wyoming. They provide the <br />primary source of water for the operation of a <br />coal-fired steam electric generating plant. known <br />as the Laramie River Station, located northeast <br />of Wheat land, Wyoming. The dam, reservoir, and <br />power plant together comprise the Missouri <br />Basin Power Project, commonly known as Ihe <br />Grayrocks Project. The Rural Electrification <br />Association (REA) granted a loan guarantee for <br />the Project in 1976 and the Omaha District of the <br />U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued a <br />construction permit in 1978. The reservoir is <br />expected to have a normal storage capacity 01 <br />approximately 104,100 acre.feet. <br />Both the North Platte and Laramie rivers are <br />fairly heavily controlled as the United States <br />Supreme Court has issued decrees affecting <br />both rivers. The State 01 Nebraska became con- <br />cerned early as to the pOSSible effect the Gray- <br />rocks reservoir would have on North Platte River <br />Ifows and particularly wintertime flows, much of <br />which IS slored in downstream Lake McCon- <br />aughy. Nebraska's Objective then became two- <br />fold: (1) to limit the amount of water consumed by <br />the power plant to a minimum, and (2) to obtain <br />guaranteed releases lrom the reservoir to main- <br />tain North Plalle streamllows. <br /> <br />2.3 <br />