WSP06827 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

are given in the discussion below under Specific Comments. While also rejected as inappropriate as separate and complete property rights rules for Nebraska, Alternatives #3, #4, #8, #10, and # 13 each have their place as a part of the overall policy structure for groundwater. As noted in the material which follows, rejection of those alterna- tives here is not meant to be and should not be interpreted as a total rejection of the concept of those alternatives to the extent they are now or can later be incorporated into a more compre- hensive ground v!ater management system. Specific Comments Alternative #2, which would adopt the English Rule of Absolute Ownership as a definition of groundwater property rights in Nebraska is rejected in total. It fails to recognize either the rights of surrounding landowners or the rights of the public in the use of groundwater in the state. It is considered outdated and counterproductive to sound management of the groundwater re- source. Alternatives #3 and #4 are among those al- ternatives for which an unfavorable recommend- ation should not be considered as a total re- jection. Both the American Rule of Reasonable Use and the California Rule of Correlative Rights are reflected in current Nebraska policy. How- ever, in that policy they are properly balanced against each other. The Commission does not believe the enactment of either as the sole governing standard would serve the interests of the state. Alternatives #5 and #6 are similar, with both establishing reasonableness as the basic standard for groundwater use. They prescribe that what is reasonable will be determined in relation to the needs of other landowners. While either alternative could be implemented in a way similar to the correlative rights portion of existing Nebraska law, such a result is not assured. The uncertainty that these alternatives would thus introduce is not desirable. Because of this un- certainty, these alternatives might discourage investments and prevent additional groundwater development where it could properly occur. Alternative #7 is an attempt to introduce, at least in part, the concept of a surface water appropriation system into the administration of groundwater in the state. The Commission believes that first in time, first in right rules have no application to the management of ground- water in the manner proposed by Alternative #7. At any given point in time, at least all then present users of water for the same purposes should share equally in the available water supply. Current .Jsers should be favored over possible future users only in extreme circumstances, such II as those recognized for imposition of a mora- torium by the Nebraska Groundwater Manage- ment and Protection Act. Alternative #8 is another alternative which would be inappropriate as a sole governing factor for groundwater use, but clearly does have a role in an overall management scheme. Alternative #8 is very similar to current Nebraska prefer- ences law, including the results of the only Nebraska case, Prather v. Eisenmann, which thus far has interpreted statutory groundwater r"\,..afaran,...o~ T, h, ,P ~nmmission's re,iection of /\1- ""1 "'Ivl Vi I """"""-..J. ....._.... ternative #8 should by no means be considered a rejection of the need for groundwater prefer- ences. It is also not a rejection of any of the alternatives recommended in the report com- pleted in October of 1981 and entitled"Prefer- ences in the Use of Water". Having considerable appeal from an equity standpoint, Alternative #9 is rejected because of the impracticability of assessing liability between groundwater users on a comparative cause basis. Proving that one groundwater use interfered with another is extremely difficult and any attempts to quantify the degree of inter- ference would be virtually impossible in most situations. Alternative # 10 is rejected because it is not felt that permits to use ground water are necessary statewide at present. Large areas of the state continue to have adequate water supplies and are experiencing no decline in water levels and no deterioration in water quality. To require permits before initiation of use in such areas would seem to require needless paperwork and bureaucracy. However, permits should continue to be required in groundwater management areas and groundwater control areas, and before municipal or industrial water is transferred from a well field to the ultimate place of use. Alternatives # 11 and # 12 are very similar, differing only in the manner in which water would be allocated to individual overlying landowners. They both require quantification of the amount of water hydrologically available and an allocation of a portion of that amount to each landowner whether they're interested in utilizing it or not. To make either alternative work efficiently, it would need to be accompanied by legislation author- izing each landowner to sell his or her rights to his or her share of that available water supply. The Commission does not believe that granting the authority to market rights to use groundwater would be a sound poliCY decision for the state. The final alternative, Alternative # 13, has been discussed earlier under "Recommended Al- ternative". Reference should be made to the discussion there for details of the Commission recommendation regarding that alternative.