WSP03064 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COO;i~8 Comments and Recommendations of the Natural Resources Commission INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE In preparing policy issue study reports such as this one, the Natural Resources Commission has two major responsibilities, The first responsibility of the Commission is to present in an objective manner a representative range of policy alterna- tives fClT the particular water policy issue being considered, The purpose of all portions of this report following this section on comments and recommendations is to fulfill that responsibility, Once all of the alternatives have been present. ed, the second responsibility ot the Commission is to provide the Legislature, the Governor, and the public with opinions on the various altern' atives, This section of the report is to fulfill that responsibility, The Commission's recommenda' tions which follow were made after a review of the report and consideration of comments offered by the public, Reasons for selecting the favored alternative and for rejecting the others are given, RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE It is the opinion of the Commission that at present the most appropriate alternative in this report is Alternative #1: Make no change in present policY. The Commission believes that LB 375 (1982 session of the Legislature), combined with existing case law, establishes the nature and extent of the groundwater property right at the point where they ought to be esta- blished, Individual landowners are provided with reasonable assurance that unless their actions violate or are inconsistent with other specific laws or properly adopted rules and regulations, they have the right to use the water that can be captured beneath their land, They are also properly alerted to the fact that all owners have an equal share in the water supply and that the amour.t used by each owner can be limited if the supply is insufficient to meet the needs of all. Another advantage of current policy is that it retains maximum flexibility for future legislative actions on groundwater. As the development of Nebraska's groundwater supplies continues, presently unanticipated circumstances will almost certainly arise and will require legislative action, The State of Nebraska needs to avoid actions now which could preclude what may be an appropriate response to such circumstances at a later date,ln our opinion, Alternative #1 best accomodates that need, Alternative # 13 is not recommended but was given serious consideration by the Commission and would be the Commission's lavored alterna- tive if the Legislature chose not to accept Alternative # 1, As this report points out, Alterna' tives #1 and #13 are similar. The differences between the two alternatives are largely in degrees of detail, with Alternative # 13 being the more specific, It is that specificity and the inflex' ibility which accompanies it that cause the Commission to reject Alternative # 13 in favor of Alternative # 1, However, if the need arises in the future to inject a greater degree 01 detail into groundwater property rights, we strongly recommend that the details found in Alternative #13 be given first consideration, ALTERNATIVES NOT FAVORED Overall Comments As the alternatives are presented in this report, they are mutually exclusive, The recommenda' tion of Alternative # 1 automatically requires that each 01 the others be rejected at least as a complete and separate property rights rule lor the state, Beyond that practical requirement, the Commission also rejects many 01 the alternatives as inappropriate lor even a more limited applica, tion in Nebraska, These include Alternatives #2 #5, #6, #7, #9, #11, and #12, Commissio~ reasons lor rejecting these alternatives in total