Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-1 <br /> <br />, <br />fOJ!f0. fO) ~ ,., ~ 3 <br />IF'ublic LA1dvisory Lg)oard . t <br /> <br />Slote Woler Planning ond Review Process <br /> <br />NURAS"'''' ....\fUR...\. RESOURCES COMMISSION. 301 CENTEfoIH'AL ......lL SOUTH. po. eox i.-&r, . UHCOL"', HE8ru,s",... USO!l <br /> <br />"flI!'IIICIP,u <br />Rk"..dH._. <br />0..11. <br /> <br />OO"'Esnc <br />IlJfn.dG..,..w <br />Neb......CIr\o <br />GROlND WATER IRRlGAnO~ <br />........... <br />c... <br /> <br />!iolo'RFACE WATU!IRHIGAnO:\j <br />Do..S.......a...~.. <br />"0...111 <br />UW:STOCK PRQ0UCT10!'l <br />~.d1 ....<Id.. <br />w..owu <br /> <br />E.WlHONM.E.."ITAL <br />C!.vt-Lor.Ir._ <br />HoLooc.to <br /> <br />[NOUSTlUAl.6 CO,","'EJlClAI. <br />"'anc.~ <br />~- <br />IIIUDUfE. n50ft II< RECllUonOr"l <br />IUc:!....NIaIeo; <br />.... <br />1M COo'olGR!:SSIONiIU. tHSTlUCT <br />E!m..SdlIa......" <br />.....urrfy <br /> <br />2.... CONGllESSIQ!'fAL DISTRlCT <br />.....w'-" [..1k1l <br />'"""- <br />1rd CONGRE.SSlOI'OAL DISTIlICT <br />...-~ <br />N__ <br /> <br />The Honorable Charles Thone. Governor <br />State of ~ebraska <br />State Capitol <br />Lincoln, ~ebraska 68509 <br /> <br /> <br />j <br /> <br />~[embers of t~e Eighty-Seventh ~;ebrask.a Legislature <br />Second Session <br />Scate Capitol <br />Lincoln, Sebraska 68509 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Dear Governor Thone and ~embers of the Legislature: <br /> <br />In accordance wi:h its statutory responsibility under <br />Section 2-3287 R.S. Supp., 1982 the ?ublic Advisory Board <br />has reviewed the report of the ~atural Resources Commission <br />entitled "Property Rights in Groundwater" and the Commission's <br />recommendations on the alternatives contained in that report. <br />The following co~~ents and recommendations are offered for <br />your consideration. <br /> <br />The Public Advisory Soard agrees with the Commi~sion that <br />a radical change in the groundwater property rights rules for <br />the state is not desirable. ''':e therefore reject, as did the <br />Commission, those alternatives 02 through "12) which would <br />significantly alter those rules. However, we do not agree <br />with the Commission on its choice between the two remaining <br />alternatives: Alternative Jl (Xake no change in present <br />~olicy) and Alternative ,113 (Codify the rules derived from <br />~ebraska cases, as near as they can be a€termined, as the <br />definition of groundwater property !.'ights in :{ebraska). As <br />the Commission's report points out, both those alternatives <br />are designed to gene!.'ally ~aintain the present course of <br />direction. The diiferences between them are in degrees of <br />detail and specificity. The Public Advisory Board does not <br />share the Commission's concerns that Alternative li13 would <br />create an undesirable degree of rigidity in groundwater <br />property rights law. ~nil~ some flexibility for future <br />actions may be lost by enacting Alternative ~13. we believe <br />:hat loss ~ould be more than offset by the greater certainty <br />of right granted groundwater users. This greater certainty <br />would reduce the present confusion and misunderstanding about <br />groundwater property rights. ~e therefore favor the enact- <br />::!ent of Alternative '113 and urge rejection of Alternative 'Fl. <br /> <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />