WSP03064 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Socio-Economic Impacts Quantifying groundwater property rights would give landowners absolute security of right. The system also would be flexible since virtually all forms of even-handed regulation would be permissible. Quantification, by itself, however, would not lead to economically efficient use of groundwater. Efficient water use would occur only if the rights were freely transferable in a market system that accounted for inherent market defects. The advantage of quantification, however, is that groundwater could then be treated economically much as any other item of property. From an equity perspective, this alternative would favor landowners over the general public since landowners would capture much of the economic rent inherent in the groundwater re- source. All landowners would benefit from groundwater, however, on the basis of hydrologic and geologic characteristics of their land rather than on history of use, priority of use, or time of use. Physical-Hydrologic and Environmental Impacts The flexibility and certainty of right offered by quantification would facilitate sophisticated management of groundwater reservoirs that could minimize the adverse physical-hydrologic and environmental effects of groundwater use. Successful implementation of this alternative, however, would require sophisticated hydrologic data. Several factors must be known to de- termine the amount of groundwater in storage including the position of the upper surface of saturation, the definition of the base of the aquifer, and the porosity of the earth material. There are difficulties in the determination of each factor. Determining the position of the upper surface of saturation becomes progressively more diffi- cult as one moves across the state toward eastern Nebraska. For example, two wells side by side near Rising City, Nebraska have a 17 foot difference in water level during the winter months with greater differences during the summer. Essentially there is a water level drop in the lower aquifer unit under confined conditions and a water level rise in the upper aquifer unit under unconfined conditions. Determination of storage coefficients in both settings would be required before water level changes could be translated to changes in water storage. At least several pump tests would be required per section to get ball park figures. Water-level information currently is most avail- 3-16 able in developed areas due to the efforts of NRDs in data collection. Unfortunately, these are the same areas where complexities mentioned in the previous paragraph occur. Definition of the base of the aquifer has a number of concerns. How deep can irrigators go for water and still be economic? What is the water quality? What is the nature of the underlying bedrock? For example, at York, Nebraska three distinct sand and gravel layers have been tapped in turn as water level declines have occurred and development increased. Because most wells are drilled to a depth where adequate water can be obtained and not drilled to the base of the aquifer(s), a shortage of information exists in many areas. Porosity, as it represents the potential for storage, has many factors such as sorting, pack- ing, cementation of grains, sphericity, and angularity. A general figure would be 20 to 40 percent. Closer determination would require much more detailed field tests. In short, much of the detailed information that might be required to implement this alternative does not now exist. A comprehensive program would be required to generate this information. Alternative #12: Quantify the amount of water hydrologically available beneath particular surface formations and give each landowner a vested right to with- draw a particular quantity of water based on the number of acres of productive irrigable land owned by the overlying landowner. Description and Methods of Implementation Alternative # 12 is based on the same concept as Alternative # 11, quantifying groundwater property rights and allocating them in relation to the overlying land. This alternative differs from the previous one, however, in that water rights are not assigned on the basis of total overlying acreage owned but on the basis of productive overlying acreage owned. Consequently, this alternative incorporates an element of land use directly into the groundwater allocation process, Difficulties, of course, would be encountered in an attempt to allocate groundwater rights based on the character of the overlying land. Some beneficial uses of water, such as for mining or manufacturing, may be independent of the character of the overlying land. On the other hand, reasonable agricultural use of ground-