WSP02891 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

surface flows and vice-versa. The Upper Niobrara and Blue River compacts are good examples of how this interrelationship can be recognized in an interstate agreement. STUDY #4: WATER USE EFFICIENCY There appears to be little direct relationship between this study and the one on Water Use Efficiency. That study will primarily address how water supplies available in Nebraska can be best used within the state. However, efforts to achieve efficiency in use could have an impact either positively or negatively on Nebraska's claims to interstate water. On one hand, it can be argued that we do not serve the state's interest by becoming highly efficient as our demands for water will then be diminished and we will not be entitled to as much in the future. On the other hand, public policy generally favors more effici- ent uses of water and it could be argued that Nebraska's efforts to achieve increased effici- ency should be rewarded when the interstate allocation of waters are being considered. STUDY #5: SELECTED WATER RIGHTS ISSUES Report # 1, Preferences in the Use of Water. In negotiation or litigation over interstate water uses, the uses afforded statutory preference in Nebraska could affect the state's right to water. Courts will look at state law as one factor in deciding interstate allocations. However, the way in which the state defines beneficial use of water will have as much, if not more, impact in this regard than will the specific order in which those uses are preferred. Report #2, Drainage of Diffused Surface Waters. No significant relationships with this study have been identified. Report #3. Water Rights Adjudication. In its comments on the Water Rights Adjudication Report, the Commission recommended an al- ternative which would statutorily specify a number of excuses for non-use of surface water rights for more than three years. If that alternative were adopted, fewer surface water rights would be subject to cancellation. The continued recog- nition of these rights could increase the number of claims considered in an interstate allocation, thus bettering Nebraska's position in that event. The Water Rights Adjudication Report also deals with the adjudication of previously un- quantified water claims like those for Indian and federal reserved rights. While quantifications of these types of rights within Nebraska will likely 4-2 have little impact, quantification and exercise of those rights in upstream states cou Id have signif- icant impact on the water supplies available for use in Nebraska. Report #4, Property Rights in Groundwater. The study on Property Rights in Groundwater does not appear to be related to any of the alternatives in this report except Alternatives #3 and#6. The nature of the groundwater property right could very definitely affect the ability of the state to negotiate an interstate groundwater compact as is proposed in Alternative #3. Imple- mentation of Alternative #6 would be pOSSible only if certain alternatives in the Property Rights in Groundwater Report were not adopted. With a strong private property right, in fact, it is likely that few restrictions on transportation of ground- water across statelines could withstand attack. Additional guidance in this regard is provided in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Douglas v. Sporhase. Report #5, Riparian Rights. The pOSSibility of increasing the number of established and offici- ally recognized claims to surface water is pre- sented by the Riparian Rights Study. Any action taken to increase those numbers should en- hance Nebraska's position in interstate disputes. Report # 7, Transferability of Water Rights. Al- ternative #9 in this report is directly on point, at least in concept, with the issues to be considered in the transferability study. While water rights are not presently transferable in Nebraska except through transfer of the land to which they are attached, Alternative # 9 wou Id take advantage of the laws to the contrary in upstream states. The relationship of the other alternatives in this report to the study on transferability are less direct. One impact of authorizing the transfer of water rights would likely be the retention of some earlier priority dates. Instead of allowing a water right to be cancelled for more than three years nonuse, an appropriator who no longerdesiredto use that right might instead sell it to another user. The resulting retention of the earlier priority date might prove to be advantageous in the resolution of an interstate dispute where relative priority dates could be one factor considered. Report #8, Beneficial Use. Although a task force report has been completed on this particu- lar issue, a report on Beneficial Use may not be finalized by the Commission because of the increasingly evident overlap between that study and the other studies being conducted, particu: larly Water Use Efficiency. Whether or not a study on beneficial use is completed, the determin- ation of what constitutes a beneficial use of water in Nebraska could have considerable impact on claims by the state to water in interstate streams. The more beneficial uses which are recognized