Laserfiche WebLink
<br />i" <br />.' U ' , <br />" II. <br />Water Right Adjudications. No significant re- <br />lationships with this study have been identified. <br />Riparian/Appropriative Rights, No significant <br />relationships with this study have been identi- <br />fied. <br />Inters tare Water Uses and Conflicts. The alter- <br />natives in this study could affect the interstate <br />use of groundwater. For example, if the English <br />Rule of Absolute Ownership (Alternative # 2) <br />were adopted. Nebraska would probably not be <br />able to prohibit the transportation and use of that <br />water across slate lines under any circum- <br />stances. Also. the nature of the individual's rights <br />10 the use of ground water could affect <br />Nebraska's relationships with other states over <br />the use of the groundwater supply. Nebraska <br />cannot realistically expect neighboring states to <br />be more restrictive than it is on the use of a <br />common source of supply. <br />Transferability of Surface Water Rights. No <br />significant relationships with this study have <br />been identified. <br /> <br />STUDY #6: <br />MUNICIPAL WATER NEEDS <br /> <br />Because of the almost exclusive reliance on <br />groundwater as a source of municipal water, <br />decisions affecting the nature of groundwater <br />property rights will clearly impact upon municipal <br />water uses. The exact impact 01 any 01 the <br />alternatives identified in Chapter 3 will normally <br />depend upon the nature 01 the specific situation. <br />For example, Alternative #2 could have good or <br />bad conseQuences for a particular municipal <br />water supply. To the benefit of a municipality, this <br /> <br />SEW ~~t\ <br />. '- <br /> <br /> <br />I, <br />...-----c <br />, _ J. <br /> <br />:I <br /> <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />'. . iit-v <br /> <br />alternative would allow the purchase of a parcel <br />of land only large enough for construction of the <br />well with no fear of liability for depletion of the <br />water supplies under adjoining properties. By the <br />same token. however, the alternative would <br />provide a municipality with no protection from <br />withdrawals by others. Such withdrawals, of <br />course. could adversely affect the municipal <br />supply. <br />Another alternative with conseQuences which <br />would depend upon the details of implement- <br />ation is Alternative #8. That alternative would <br />benefit municipal uses if such uses were given a <br />preferred use. but would be detrimental if they <br />were given an inferior use. <br /> <br />STUDY #7: <br />SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SUPPLIES <br /> <br />The nature of the Supplemental WarerSupplies <br />study is not yet well defined. but that study will <br />deal with both groundwater and surface water. It <br />is likely that alternatives to recharge ground- <br />water supplies will be included. The feasibility <br />and practicability of recharge schemes could be <br />impacted by some of the alternatives identified in <br />this report. Because many of the alternatives <br />would also affect the extent of groundwater use <br />in the state, they would also affect the need for <br />supplemental water. <br /> <br />STUDY #8: <br />INTERBASIN TRANSFERS <br /> <br />STUDY #9: <br />WEATHER MODIFICATION <br /> <br />A decision has been made that these studies <br />will not be conducted. Therefore, no attempt has <br />been made to identify possible relationships with <br />this study. <br /> <br />STUDY #10: <br />WATER-ENERGY <br /> <br />STUDY #11: <br />SURFACE-GROUNDWATER <br />INTEGRATION <br /> <br />These two studies are identified in the <br />September 15. 1982. AOl"ual Report and Plan of <br />Work. Only initial work has begun 00 them. how- <br />ever. and no attempt was made to identify <br />pOSSible relationships with this study. <br /> <br />4.3 <br />