WSP07158 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1"1 'll' 0 -'! I. 'f-) slight preference lor OpllOn q 1 because it is simpler to implement. However. either option is mOSI acceptable. The Commission beHeves thaI the above water project funding package provides for an affordable in- crease in the state's financial commitment 10 resource development. We also believe that it would resuit in in. itiation of a systematic procedure lor identifying addi- tional prOjects wonhy of fundmg. Finally, it would create a mechanism adequate 10 generate large amounts of dollars when needed, such as for uptronl financing tor large federal projects, or for major prOjects constructed Without federallunds. We strongly support implemen- tation of all components as outlined. SECTION 2 . COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON POLICY ALTERNATIVES In Ihe following paragraphs are 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- tained in our original task force report. Adoption of LB 198 resulted in three alternatives becoming a part of present policy. These were: "Clearly authorize the appropriation of surface water to recharge groundwater reservoirs." "Legally 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 10 levy a fee for withdrawing water stored underground." The Commission strong- ly agreed with the adoption of LB 198. An alternative to "allow districts to determine the maximum size of drainage areas lor a water impound- ment structure" being built in part with money Irom the Water Conservation Fund became a part of current policy with the adoption of LB 236. Therefore, it was also deleted. An alternative to "authorize water users 10 exchange water from diNerent sources subject to the protection of existing surface appropriation" was deleted because the Commission felt that that topic was adequately addressed elsewhere in the report. Our comments and recommendations on the alter- natives now contained in the report are as follows: AL TERNA TIVE #1 (formerly '4): Authorize water suppliers to vary surface water and ground- water use fees to achieve a balanced use of each. The Commission recommendS adoption of Altern- ative #1 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 regula lions 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 '6): Authorize groundwater transfer for agricultural purposes to include Irrigation, recharge, and surface and underground storage. The Commission recommends that this alternative be adopted with certain provisions to 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-stale residents is extremely difficult to justify if not absolutely prohibited. Thus. if a groundwater transfer policy is adopted as recommended, it will almost certainly have to be applied across state lines as well as within the state. AL TERNA TlVE #3 (formerly *1): Oeclere thet groundwater may be used to supplement streamflow needs. The Commission does not recommend adoption of this alternative. We continue to believe our recommend- ations on the Policy Issue Study on Instresm Flows are the best method of addressing this issue. This would be a very expensive option to implement. ALTERNATIVE #4 (formerly '8): Remove tho preference for Junior direct flow Irrigation ap- propriators over senior storage appropriators. The Commission does not recommend adoption of this alternative. If the alternative 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 waste of a valuable resource. v