WSP06696

• File Number: 8407.400
• Description: Platte River Basin - River Basin General Publications - Nebraska
• State: NE
• Basin: South Platte
• Water Division: 1
• Date: 1/1/1984
• Author: Nebraska Natural Res
• Title: Policy Issue Study on Supplemental Water Supplies
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

"')"11.0
tr II. t")

slighl preference lor Option #1 because it is simpler
10 implement. However, either option is most
acceptable.
The CommIssion believes that the above water
project funding package provides for an affordable 10-
crease in the stale's financial commitment to resource
development. We also believe Ihat it would result in in.
itiation of a systematic procedure for identifying addi.
tional projects worthy of funding. Finally, il would create
a mechanism adequate to generale large amounts of
dollars when needed, such as lor upfront flnancing tor
large federal projects, or for major projects constructed
without federal funds. We strongly support implemen-
tation of all components as outlined.

SECTION 2 -
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ON POLICY ALTERNATIVES

In the following paragraphs afe our comments and
recommendations on each legislative and management
alternative contained in the report. At this point it should
be noted that legislative action in the 1983 legislative
session resulted in deletion of several alternatives con.
tainad in our original task lorce report. Adoption of
LB 198 resulted in three atternatives becoming a part
of present policy. These were: "Clearly authorize the
appropriation of surface water to recharge groundwater
reservoirs," "Legatty authorize water suppliers to
modify surface water appropriations without loss of
priority (a) to reflect the reduction of direct surface water
use in favor of recharged groundwater, and (b) to reflect
that surface water is being stored underground for
use," and "legally authorize water suppliers to store
water underground and to levy a fee for withdrawing
water stored underground. ,. The Commission strong.
Iy agreed with the adoption of LB 198.
An alternative to "attow districts to determine the
maximum size of drainage areas lor a water impound.
ment structure" being buitt in part with money from the
Water Conservation Fund became a part of current
policy with Ule adoption of LB 236. Therefore, it was
also deleted. An alternative to "authorize waler users
to exchange water from diNerent sources subject to the
protection 01 existing surface appropriation" was
deleted because the Commission lett that that topic was
adequately addressed elsewhere in the report.
Our comments and recommendations on the atter.
natives now contained in the report are as follows:

ALTERNATIVE #1 (formerly N4): Authorize
water suppliers to vary surlace water and ground-
water use fees to achieve a balanced use of each.

The Commission recommends adoption of Altern-
ative #7 with the stipulation that NRDs and other water
suppliers be able to use either fees or regulation. We
do not choose to specify the details of this recommend.

dation due to the complexity of the law. However, we
do believe that such fees and regulations would be a
valuable tool to help manage water supply. As noted
earlier, the Commission endorses the concept of in-
tegrated management as embodied in LB 198 in the
1983 session of the Unicameral.

AL TERNA TIVE #2 (formerly N6): Authorize
groundwater transfer for agricultural purposes to
Include Irrigation, recharge, and surlace and
underground storage.

The Commission recommends that this alternative
be adopted with certain provisions 10 protect the area
of groundwater origin. We would first define overlying
land as contiguous land under the same ownership
within one mile of the point of groundwater withdrawal.
We then recommend that all transfers to overlying land
be allowed. We also recommend that transfers to non-
overlying land be allowed on a permit basis. Such per-
mits would be issued by the Department of Water
Resources if it was determined by specific criteria that
the transfer would result in no substantial adverse im-
pacts to the general area of groundwater origin.
One impact of this alternative which is not discuss-
ed elsewhere in this report is its impact on Nebraska's
ability to control interstate transfers of Nebraska
groundwater, Two recent cases in this area make it
clear that discrimination of out.of-state residents in
favor of in-state residents is extremely difficult to justify
if not absolutely prohibited. Thus. if a groundwater
transfer policy is adopted as recommended, it will
almost certainty have to be applied across state lines
as well as within the state.

AL TERNA TIVE #3 (forme,ly 07): Oeclere thet
groundwater may be used to supplement
.treamflow need..

The Commission does not recommend adoption of
this alternative. We continue to believe our recommend-
ations on the Policy IssuB Study on InstTeam Flows are
Ihe best method 01 addressing this issue. This would
be a very expensive option to implement.

AL TERNA TIVE #4 (forme,ly OBI: Remove the
preference for Junior direct flow Irrigation ap-
propriator. over senior storage appropriator..

The Commission does not recommend adoption of
this alternative. If the al1ernative were adopted it would
mean that storage could occur at a time when there
were downstream appropriators who could use the
water. Later off-season precipitation and base flows
could fill the storage facility to the point that the water
would be released and flow down the stream unused.
We believe this would be a waSle of a valuable
resource.

v