WSP06827 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Alternative #8: Adopt a Preference in Use Rule as the definition of ground- water property rights in Nebraska. Alternative #9: Adopt a Comparative Cause Rule as the definition of ground- water property rights in Nebraska. Alternatives Seven through Nine contem- plate essentially unlimited access to supplies of groundwater with the crucial issue being who ought to bear the costs of aquifer depletion that reduces water tabies and artesian head. Under Alternative Seven early users are protected from later users. Under Alternative Eight pre- ferred users are protected from less preferred users. Under Alternative Nine costs of aquifer depletion are shared among all users in pro- portion to their use. The economic burden im- posed on later or less preferred users by Alterna- tives Seven and Eight may act to slow aquifer depletion as might the cost of ascertaining comparative cause in Alternative Nine. Alternative #10: Adopt a groundwater property rights system where rights are created and evidenced by securing a perm it from an appropriate state agency. This alternative can be incorporated into most substantive rules of law. Permits could thus be granted on the basis of first in time - first in right, on the basis of the number of acres owned, on the basis of intended use, or on any other basis. Thus, permits by themselves have no impact on the rate of aquifer depletion. Permits do, however, give landowners some security of right and serve as a means by wh ich water uses can be inventor- ied and water management decisions improved. Permits are particularly useful where a decision is made to mine an aquifer. Alternative #11: Quantify the amount of water hydrologically available beneath particular surface formations and give each landowner a vested right to with- draw a particular quantity of water based on the total number of acres of overlying land owned by the landowner. Alternative #12: Quantify the amount of water hydrologically available beneath particular surface formations and give each landowner a vested right to with- draw a particular quantity of water based on the number of acres of productive irrigable land owned by the overlying owner. Alternatives Eleven and Twelve would quantify a landowner's property interest in groundwater found beneath his or her land. Each landowner would be assigned a particular quantity of water as his or her share of the aquifer stock. Alternative Eleven would allocate water in proportion to the total quantity of land owned VIII while Alternative Twelve wou Id allocate g round- water in proportion to the total number of irrigable acres owned. The size of the allocation could be based on total water in storage oron the basis of natural recharge or on some combin- ation thereof. The rate of aquifer depletion, if any, would depend on the choice of the basis for allocation. The direct economic benefit of groundwater would be shared among overlying landowners based on the number of acres owned, not the amount of water used, much a~ rights to other mineral deposits are based on land ownership. A significant advantage of quantification is the susceptibility of quantified rights to ma1-ket transfers. The cost of gathering the hydrologic data necessary for quantification, however, would be very high. Alternative #13: Codify the rules derived from Nebraska cases, as nearasthey can be determined, as the definition of groundwater property rights in Nebraska. Alternative Thirteen would adopt by legisla- tion the consequences of the Nebraska Rule of Reasonable Use as it has developed or is expect- ed to develop in case law. The effect of this alternative would be to take what now may be a mere license to use ground water and transform it into a vested property right. Landowners under this alternative would be entitled to a reasonable share of tre groundwater supply based on land ownership if groundwater supplies were in- sufficient to meet the needs of all owners. As long as supplies were adequate, landowners would be entitled to withdraw as much water as they could put to reasonable and beneficial use on overlying land that they owned. Any transfers off the over- lying land would be subject to state approval and the vested rights of other overlying landowners. Rights acquired pursuant to this alternative would be appurtenant to the land and could not be sold or in any way transferred without the express consent of the public. Alternatives #13 and #1 are similar, but not identical. Whereas Alternative # 1 would leave in effect the provisions of LB 375 (which enact in a general way the reasonable use and correlative rights aspects of the Nebraska Rule), Alternative #13 goes one step beyond that general language by enacting more specific rules, some of which are noted above. Those more speCific rules are derived from either a previously con- firmed or anticipated interpretation of how the general rule would be applied in particular situ- ations. In a sense, Alternative #13 is like a definition of the Nebraska Rule of Reasonable Use, while Alternative # 1, including LB 375, is more in the nature of a statement of that rule. As between the two rules, Alternative # 13 provides