Laserfiche WebLink
<br />GDn75~ <br /> <br />development funds and (2) the conditioning of thaI fund. <br />ing on the availability of significant state and local'und. <br />ing. While the laner factor will increase the cost to <br />Nebraskans of federal supplemental water projects, the <br />possible changes in federal financing policies may not <br />be necessarily constraining. However. the existing <br />federal financial feasibility criteria have served as a con- <br />straint. Any required increase in slale and locallinan- <br />cing could come either from higher water.use charges, <br />higher local and/or state laxes, or some combination <br />thereof. These changes may prove 10 be financially, <br />and therefore politically, constraining. <br />There afe two economic factors which potentially <br />constrain water development: (1) the identification of <br />projects where the investment generates net benefits <br />at least equal to what the funds would have generated <br />elsewhere, and (2) the availability of funds to hnance <br />economically efficient projects. With respect 10 <br />economic efficiency, the analysis of selected projects <br />reveals that there exists at least some economically ef- <br />ficient development alternatives once interest rates <br />decrease to more conventional levels. In view of the <br />large expenditures required, it seems likely that the <br />most limiting economic constraint will consist of the dlf. <br />ficulties in linancing economically efficient proJects. <br />The following section of this summary examines 30 <br />alternative legislative and management actions related <br />to supplemental water supply. Although the impacts of <br />these alternative actions are not contained in the <br />Summary, they are stated in the body of the report. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS <br /> <br />A. CONTINUE PRESENT POLICIES <br /> <br />The current state policies (laws and court decisions) <br />on storage and transfer of surface waler do nOI seem <br />to inhibit the development of supplemental water <br />systems. The Nebraska Endangered Species Act may <br />be an exception. By contrast, an absence of legal <br />authority 10 transfer groundwater for agricultural pur. <br />poses does inhibit such development. The state policies <br />on water conservation and groundwater-reservoir <br />management are not seen as hindrances 10 <br />supplemental water developments. The existing level <br />of state funding which might be available for such <br />development is very Iimiled and would not promote <br />rapid or large..scale development of supplemental water <br />supplies. SOme sources also believe that both the most <br />inexpensive and the mOSI economically feasible pro- <br />jects have already been built. <br /> <br />B. INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT <br /> <br />Methods of management that integrate the use of <br />water from more than one source suggest alternative <br />actions. An alternative was included in this study which <br />could enhance this method of developing supplemen- <br /> <br />tal waler supplies in Nebraska. <br /> <br />Alternative 1 (formerly Alternative 1M) <br /> <br />Authonze water suppliers to vary surface water and <br />groundwater use lees to achieve a balanced use of <br />each. <br /> <br />C. CHANGES IN WATER RIGHTS <br /> <br />Alternative 2 (formerly Allernative /#6) <br />Authorize groundwater transfer for agricultural pur- <br />poses to include irrigation, recharge, and surface <br />and underground storage. <br />Alternative 3 (formerly Alternative #7) <br />Declare that groundwater may be used to supple- <br />ment natural flow to meet stream flow needs. <br />Alternative 4 (formerly Alternative #8) <br />Remove the preference for junior natural.flow ap- <br />propnators over senior storage appropriators during <br />irrigation season. <br />Alternative 5 (formerly Alternative #9) <br />Develop more specific guidelines as 10 what is <br />necessary to extend an application lor water for a <br />supplemental water project that has not been <br />completed. <br /> <br />O. SOURCES OF FUNDING <br /> <br />Alternative 6 - Alternative 12 (formerly Alternative #10 <br />. Alternative #16) <br />Increase the level of state funding for development <br />of supplemental water supplies. The proposals for <br />sources of such funding range from new taxes and <br />use fees to increased appropriations and taxes. to <br />the sale of bonds. <br />Alternative 13 - Alternative 18 (formerly Alternative <br />#17 - Alternative #22) <br />Increase the capability of local governments, in- <br />cluding natural resources districts, to raise funds to <br />develop supplemental water supplies. ThIS could be <br />done through granting authority for new taxes and <br />use fees and new finanCIng methods to include <br />bonds. <br /> <br />E. CHANGES IN EXISTING PROGRAMS <br /> <br />Alternative 19- Alternative 22 (formerly Alternative <br />#23 - Alternative 11'26) <br />Change the Natural Resources Development Fund <br />by establishing new critena lor economic feasi- <br />bility, by allowing grants for revenue-producing <br />projects. and by giving priority to large..size projects <br />and those with integrated managemenl. <br />Alternative 23 (formerly Alternative #27) <br />Place a prionty on projects funded through the Water <br />Conservation Fund which offset the need for sup- <br />plemental water development. <br /> <br />XIII <br />