WSP02891 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

have a significant impact on water use in the compact area, but the exact nature of that impact is impossible to assess before any agreement has, in fact, been negotiated. Depending upon the purpose of the compact, for example to jointly conduct a study or allocate the water, it might in some cases be necessary to regulate ground- water use. Socio-Economic Impacts. Groundwater compacts pose many of the same economic issues as were discussed in Alternative #2. Add- itional factors, however, bear on the socio-eco- nomic impacts of groundwater allocation. First, and perhaps foremost, hydrologic data may not be available in sufficient form to serve as a basis of a compact. While streamflows can be accur- ately measured at relatively low cost, determin- ing the amount of groundwater in storage is a complex and costly task. If a groundwater compact is to be effective, the boundaries and storage capacity must be known as well as the rate and direction of water movements in the aquifer. Detailed information can only be devel- oped at great cost particularly if the aquifer does not possess uniform characteristics throughout. A second socio-economic impact of ground- water compacts relates to the degree of control that must be exercised if compact terms are to be enforced. Without mutual controls on withdrawal rates on both sides of the state line, users in one state will be able to pump waterfrom beneath the other state. The problem raises complex issues that are discussed in other reports. ALTERNATIVES TO BETTER NEBRASKA'S POSITION FOR FUTURE INTERSTATE ALLOCATIONS Alternative #4: Declare that natural flow permits may be issued for other beneficial uses including instream uses. Description and Methods of Implementa- tion. A variation of this alternative first appeared in the Policy Issue Study on Instream Flows and is described in more detail in that study. As is stated in that report, the "present law is unclear as to whether natural flow appropriation permits may be issued for instream uses other than hydroelectric power production. This alternative would allow the Department of Water Resources to issue natural flow permits for such uses on stream segments that have significant instream flow values and unappropriated natural flow.,,2 It has been suggested that Nebraska recog- 3-4 nize and appropriate water for instream uses in order to improve its overall position in any future interstate arguments over water. Courts, in gen- eral, will consider the amount of water appropri- ated for legal uses in considering the best alloca- tion scheme. The effectiveness of such an altern- ative, however, should not be overestimated. Appropriations for instream uses could in fact "use" all the water remaining in the streams and courts will not necessarily allocate enough water to meet all of the state's claims. Another method of implementation would be to statutorily define beneficial use of water to in- clude instream uses. Beneficial use for the purposes of evaluating an application for an interbasin transfer of water, for example, has been defined to include "reasonable and effi- cient use of water for domestic, municipal, agri- cultural, industrial, commercial, power pro- duction, subirrigation, fish and wildlife, ground- water recharge, an interstate compact, water quality maintenance, or recreational purposes.,,3 Current and foreseeable beneficial uses of water in the basin of origin are considered in weighing the benefits to the state in deciding whether to grant an application to transfer water between basins. Broaden ing the scope of this definition to include all references to beneficial use in the statutes, while not having the same legal impact as actual appropriations, would appear to indi- cate an overall desire to reserve the waters of the state for use within the state. A court making an allocation, however, would probably not give the same weight to recognized beneficial uses as it would give to issued permits to appropriate. This alternative could be implemented by an act of the legislature declaring that those in- stream uses for which it desires natural flow permits to be issued are beneficial uses of water and directing the Department of Water Re- sources to issue natural flow permits for these uses when requested. The legislature would also have to determine who could acquire these rights. Physical/Hydrologic/Environmental Im- pacts. This alternative would help to ensure the availability of water for instream uses. It may also reduce or prevent further alterations in flow that additional water developments might cause, depending on the amount of the right. The potential environmental and recreational impacts which could result from the implementa- tion of this alternative could benefit the entire state. The benefits could come in the areas of water characteristics, fisheries, recreation, and aesthetics. Socio-Economic Impacts. Economic effici- ency is enhanced by recognizing the value of instream uses. Such uses ought to be included in