WSP06607 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~C,' !. ,") 1 tv, of these districts is creating a great deal of resistance to them par- ticularly by the large taxpayers throughout the state. Yet their effective- ness in achieving the needed public improvements cannot be doubted. " A law enabling the landowners within a particular area to create a ground water district with the necessary powers for ground water conservation, recharge and ground water storage would appear to be a step in the right direction. Such a ground water district could be given such general powers or specific powers as the legislature may determine. Nebraska passed an act enabling the creation of ground water conservation districts, legislative bill 554 of the 1959 Legislature. Inquiry of Mr. Dan Jones, State Engineer of Nebraska, reveals that no petition for the creation of such district had been filed. Powers granted by the Act include gathering information, assistance in ground water conservation, pro- viding technical information concerning ground water conservation, in- stituting corrective measures for proper conservation and to levy a tax not to exceed one mill to carry out the functions of the district. . Both Kansas and California have laws which enable landowners to create ground water districts for the solution of their problems. " There was tremendous resistance to the creation of a critical ground water district under the ground water act because it did not start at the local level. Legislation enabling the landowners in the area to organize a district of their own selection would give them a maximum of local partition and enable those faced with declining water tables to work for a constructive solution. Still another specific problem is that of determining what water is tributary to the stream. Legislation must recognize scientific data and physical facts disclosed by research and investigation. Ground water is a part of the hydrological cycle. But if all water is tributary to the stream each water development will be severely limited. The General Assembly in several sessions has debated the rule of presum- tion. Proposed provisions that water was not presumed tributary have failed. So has a provision abolishing any presumption. So has a provision that all water is presumed to be a part of the stream. W. E. Code has stated the problem in the following manner: '. "In my opinion the term 'tributary' as a description of ground-water movement should be dropped in legalistic considerations. It has been used as a mechanism by the - 9 -