Title: Aquifer Pressure Relief and Existing Users: A Review of State Programs - Janualy 11, 1996
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004674/00001
 Material Information
Title: Aquifer Pressure Relief and Existing Users: A Review of State Programs - Janualy 11, 1996
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Center for Governmental Responsibility/College of Law, Univ. of Fla.
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Richard Hamann Collection - Aquifer Pressure Relief and Existing Users: A Review of State Programs - Janualy 11, 1996
General Note: Box 25, Folder 3 ( Aquifer Pressure Relief and Existing Users - 1996 ), Item 1
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004674
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text












Aquifer Pressure Relief and Existing Users:

A Review of State Programs




January 11, 1996





Richard Hamann,
Project Director

Thomas T. Ankersen,
Staff Attorney

Karen Clark
Todd Trexler,
Research Assistants















Center for Governmental Responsibility
College of Law, University of Florida
P.O. Box 7629
Gainesville, FL 32611-7629

(904) 392-2237
HAMANN@LAW.UFL.EDU
CGRTOM@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU


Prepared under contract C-6240 for the
South Florida Water Management District













Table of Contents


ALABAMA .


ALASKA .


ARIZONA .


ARKANSAS .


CALIFORNIA


COLORADO .


CONNECTICUT


DELAWARE .


GEORGIA .


HAWAII .


IDAHO .


ILLINOIS .


INDIANA .


IOWA .


KANSAS .


KENTUCKY .


LOUISIANA .


MAINE .


MARYLAND .


MASSACHUSETTS


MICHIGAN .


MINNESOTA .


MISSISSIPPI .


MISSOURI .


MONTANA .


NEBRASKA .


....


















.,..






























....


NEVADA .


January 11, 1996


. . . .. . . 49


. . 2


. . 4


. . 6


. . 8


. . . 10


S. . . 12


. . . 13


. . . 17


. . . 19


. . . 21


. . . 24


. . . 26


. . . 27


. . . 29


. . . 31


. . . 33


. . . 35


. . . 36


. . . 38


. . .. 40


. . . 41


. . . 43


. . . 45

. . . 46


. . . 48
.....48















NEW HAMPSHIRE


NEW JERSEY .


NEW MEXICO .


NEW YORK .


NORTH CAROLINA


NORTH DAKOTA .


OHIO . .


OREGON . .


PENNSYLVANIA .


RHODE ISLAND .


SOUTH CAROLINA


SOUTH DAKOTA .


SUSQUEHANNA RIVER


TENNESSEE .


TEXAS . .


UTAH . .


VERMONT . .


VIRGINIA .


WASHINGTON .


WEST VIRGINIA .


WISCONSIN .


WYOMING . .


. .


. .


. .


. .


. .


. .


. .


. .


. .


. .


BASIN


. .


. .


. .


* .


. .


. .


. .


. .


. .


. . .


. . .


. . .


. . .


. . .


. . .


. . .


. . .


. . .


. . .


COMMISSION


. . .


. . .


. . .


. . .


. . .


. . .


. . .


. . .


. . .


January 11, 1996


. . 52










ALABAMA

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes: N/A

Regulations: N/A

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

III. Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: Alabama does
not manage decreasing, artesian aquifer pressure.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Alabama has no framework for
addressing decreasing groundwater levels. Although some
drawdown problems exist, well permits are only required for
construction. Some municipalities may restrict certain
types of drilling so as to prevent interference with the
public water supply. These restrictions generally limit the
amount of groundwater withdrawal.

Regulation Organization: N/A

Mitigation Techniques: N/A

Regulations: N/A

Regulation Problems: N/A

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: N/A

IV. Agency, Contact Person

Enid Bitner
Groundwater Division, Environmental Management
P.O. Box 301463
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
334-270-5655


January 11, 1996










ALASKA


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
*Water Management and Dam Safety, ALASKA STAT. S 11-93
(1990).

Regulations:
*Water Use Act, ALASKA ADMIN. CODE tit. 46, 15.

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

III. Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: Alaska has no
legal framework specifically addressing decreasing aquifer
pressure.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: The existing legal framework for
groundwater use requires permits for wells withdrawing 500
gpd or greater. Permits are issued on a case-by-case basis.

Regulation Organization: Water management is performed at
the state level by the Division of Water of the State of
Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. Although the
statutory framework is in place to form management
districts, the Division only forms critical management areas
as needed. To date, one critical management area has been
established.

Regulations: Alaska manages water based on the
interrelationship between groundwater and surface water.
Applicants seeking permanent water-use rights can receive
conditional withdrawal permits. Permit conditions vary
depending upon the situation.

Mitigation Techniques: The Division has historically used a
variety of mitigation techniques including time of day
withdrawal, controlled rate of diversion, and independent
water level monitoring.
Water rights are based on prior appropriation. The
Agency addressed well interference problems these problems
in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Eagle River by reducing
withdrawal rates from the aquifer and supplementing needs
with an alternative water source. Once the water table
rebounded, the Agency continued to monitor water levels and
permitted new water right applications subject to existing
conditions.

Regulation Problems: The Agency has encountered no problems
with its mitigation programs. The Agency is authorized to


January 11, 1996










affect a water right holder's conditions, so long as the
right holder is not adversely affected.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: No groundwater issues
have been litigated in Alaska. Most disputes involve
surface water issues. Almost all disputes are settled out
of court.

VI. Agency, Contact Person

Gary Prokosch
State of Alaska
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water
3601 C Street, Suite 822
P.O. Box 107005
Anchorage, AK 99510-7005


January 11, 1996










ARIZONA

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
*Arizona Groundwater Code, ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. S 45-2
(1995).
*Surface Water Code Amendments, ARIz. REV. STAT. ANN.
45-1 (1995).

Regulations:
eSurface and Ground Water Regulations, ARIZ. COMP. ADMIN.
R. & REGS. 12-15 (1995).

Case Law:
Farmers Inv. Co. v. Bettwy, 558 P.2d 14 (1976)

Related Information:
Rita P. Pearson, Water Law, in 1 ARIZONA ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW MANUAL S 3.2 (Nicholas J. Wallwork ed. 1995).
Kathleen Ferris, Arizona's Groundwater Code:
Strength in Compromise, Journal AWWA (October 1986).
H.B. 2276, 42d Leg., 1st Reg. Sess., 1995.
Fact Sheet for House Bill 2276, Arizona State Senate
(February 20, 1995).
Elizabeth Ann Reike, Arizona Water Law, Part 1, Vol.
2, REAL PROPERTY JOURNAL, No. 1, Winter 1988.
Elizabeth Ann Reike, Arizona Water Law, Part 2, Vol.
2, REAL PROPERTY JOURNAL, No. 2, Spring 1988.

II. Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: Artesian
aquifers are not regulated because most of the aquifers are
unconfined.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Arizona has comprehensive
surface and groundwater regulations.

Regulation Organization: Groundwater regulation is carried
out on a state level by Active Management Areas (AMA). The
boundaries of AMAs are hydrologically based.

Regulations: State code regulates existing and future
groundwater uses. Every well user in the state must have a
permit and is allowed to use groundwater for reasonable
uses. However, regulation in AMAs is more stringent.
Groundwater pumping in an AMA is only permitted through
three legal devices.
(1) Water rights can be grandfathered for non
irrigation purposes at 1975 usage levels.
(2) Service area rights allow private water companies
to pump groundwater. Pumping capacity can be expanded
with a showing of conservation restrictions.


January 11, 1996










(3) New service rights or new withdrawal permits for
general industry and mining are also available.
An applicant must meet all statutory requirements to use one
legal mechanism.

Regulation Problems: The primary problem Arizona has
encountered is constantly changing code. Newly discovered
problems has required continual updating.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: Litigation over the
groundwater management framework has centered on
constitutional issues. In the 1980s the regulations were
challenged as takings.

III. Agency, Contact Person

W. Patrick Schiffer
Chief Deputy Counsel
State of Arizona
Department of Water Resources
500 N. 3rd Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
602-417-2420


January 11, 1996









ARKANSAS


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
*Arkansas Ground Water Protection and Management Act,
ARK. CODE ANN. 15-22-901 (Michie 1994).
eCertificates of Registration, Water Diversion,
Exceptions, ARK. CODE ANN. 15-22-215 (Michie 1994).
eWithdrawal of underground water, Annual reports, ARK.
CODE ANN. 15-22-302 (Michie 1994).
*Notice to judge of nearby abandoned or unused well by
person with inadequate well, ARK. CODE ANN. 15-22-402
(Michie 1994).

Regulations:
eRules for the Utilization of Surface Water, Ark. Reg.
301-313 (1994).
eRules for the Protection and Management of Ground
Water, Ark. Reg. 401-405 (1994).

Case Law: No recent litigation. The vast majority of
disputes over well interference cases are negotiated out of
court.

Related Information
Arkansas Ground Water Fact Sheet
Arkansas State Water Plan, Eastern Arkansas Basin
BRAXTEL L. NEELY, JR., JOHN G. HEHR, AND J. RANDY YOUNG,
NATIONAL WATER SUPPLY SUMMARY 1988-89-FLOODS AND DROUGHTS:
ARKANSAS (Water-Supply Paper 2375)
AUGUSTINE LUDWIG, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, NATIONAL WATER
SUMMARY-ARKANSAS, GROUND-WATER RESOURCES (Water Supply Paper
2275).

II. Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No artesian
aquifer regulation.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: No groundwater use regulation
for aquifer management.

Regulation Organization: Arkansas doe snot regulate
groundwater withdrawal. However, the Arkansas Soil and
Water Conservation Commission develops the state water plan
allocating water among riparian water owners during periods
of shortage. Arkansas is in the process of implementing a
state-wide groundwater management program.
Recently, the Soil and Water Conservation Commission
completed a study that determined that a 20 percent
reduction in groundwater withdrawal would produce a safe
yield. The department plans to designate critical
management areas by late 1995.


January 11, 1996









Regulations: N/A


Mitigation Techniques: N/A

Regulation Problems: Due to public resistance to state-wide
water management, the Commission uses critical management
areas to regulate groundwater problems. Public resistance
is primarily due to the state's geological differences. In
the south-southeast the geology is similar to most of the
southern United States and is the location of most of
Arkansas' aquifer drawdown. The north-northwest, however,
is mountainous drawing primarily on surface water and lakes
for water. Industrial and recreational users of this
surface water are opposed to management of this resource.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: While groundwater-use
issues have been litigated in Arkansas, most disputes
involve surface water issues.

III. Agency, Contact Person

A. Mark Bennett, General Counsel
Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission
101 East Capitol, Suite 350
Little Rock, AR 72201
501-682-3965


January 11, 1996









CALIFORNIA

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Adoption or implementation of plan, 1995 Cal. Stat.
_, c. (A.B. 3030) S 10753.
Paramount interest of people in water, CAL. WATER CODE
104 (Deerings 1995).
Attachment of riparian rights to flow of stream or
watercourse, CAL. WATER CODE S 101 (Deerings 1995).
Terms referring to surface water and subterranean
streams, CAL. WATER CODE 1200 (Deerings 1995).

Regulations: N/A

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: None

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: California does not regulate or
monitor groundwater. State agencies generally attempt to
influence local and regional governments to solve
groundwater problems themselves. In fact, counties have
power to adopt groundwater management programs. However,
groundwater is regulated in adjudicated areas primarily for
quality. For instance, groundwater is regulated in the
Salinas basin to address saltwater intrusion problems.
Groundwater production is also limited in the St. Gabriel
basin, also a superfund site, to prevent the spread of
contamination.

Regulation Organization: Management organizations differ
generally depending on the reason for their creation. Many
organizations are judicially established and are accountable
to the courts. Management organizations are autonomously
administered either by an organization or by a single
person.

Regulations: N/A

Mitigation Techniques: In general, well permits and
contractor permits are required. Mitigation techniques used
among existing water management areas vary while none are
used outside of such a district.

Regulation Problems: Although no official regulatory
program exists, problems often encountered by water
management areas is getting non-affected citizens to support
water-use changes necessary to aid affected citizens.


January 11, 1996










Judicial or Administrative Decisions: N/A

III. Agency, Contact Person

Ken Harris
California State Water Resources Control Board
90P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-657-0876

Norma Lewis
California State Water Resources Control Board
same address as above
916-481-5273

Andy Sawyer, Assistant Chief Counsel
California State Water Resources Control Board
address same as above
916-657-0662.


January 11, 1996









COLORADO


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes
Appropriation and Use, COLO. REV. STAT. S 37-82 (1994).
Colorado Ground Water Management Act, COLO. REV. STAT.
37-90 (1994).
Water Well Contractors, COLO. REV. STAT. S 37-91
(1994).
Water Right Determination and Administration Act of
1969, COLO. REV. STAT. S 37-92 (1994).

Regulations
The Denver Basin Rules, Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water Resources, 2 COLO. CODE
REGS. S 402-6 (1994).
Statewide Nontributary Ground Water Rules, Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, 2
COLO. CODE REGS. 402-7 (1994).
Denver Basin Artificial Recharge Extraction Rules,
State of Colorado Division of Water Resources, Office
of the State Engineer, Final Draft, May 8, 1995.

Case Law: N/A

Related Information:
Synopsis of Colorado Water Law (1991)
Available Publications of the Office of the State
Engineer, Colorado Division of Water Resources (1994).
Office of the State Engineer, (Map of) Water
Division, District, Designated Groundwater Basins and
Management District Boundaries (1987).

II. Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: Colorado law
provides no legal relief for injury to use of artesian
aquifers. State law provides that reduction in the
piezometric head in artesian aquifers does not constitute an
injury. This law is only relevant in the Denver Basin
Aquifer, some of which contains artesian aquifers.
Conflicts arising from loss of artesian pressure are usually
resolved through negotiation as causation is very difficult
to prove. As of this writing, this statute has not been
challenged.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Colorado regulates all
groundwater either through its State Engineers Office or
water management districts.

Regulation Organization: Water management districts are
only located in the eastern part of the state where non-
tributary aquifers exist. The areas managed by districts


January 11, 1996









are referred to as "designated areas." The State Engineer's
Office regulates the remaining "non-designated" areas.
The State Engineer has the authority to approve permits
for small capacity wells without regard to the Colorado
Ground Water Act. However, groundwater management districts
may impose additional restrictions through further
regulation.

Regulations: Rules regarding adverse impacts and compensable
injuries differ between designated and nondesignated areas
and between tributary and nontributary aquifers.
While all wells must be permitted, household and
domestic wells are exempt from the "administration" process,
or withdrawal regulation.

Mitigation Techniques: In general, Colorado does not
guarantee water levels. Negotiation is the primary
mitigation tool for addressing adverse affects identified
during the permitting process. Permittees are required to
obtain injury waivers from existing well users located
within 600 feet of the proposed well site. To obtain
waivers permittees may negotiate timing and pumping rates.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: Litigation is
initiated where legal remedies exist. Parties generally
litigate to resolve water-right interference problems.
Compensation for adverse affects is available under specific
circumstances. Otherwise, no litigation was located
regarding groundwater consumption.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Peter Fahmy AND Lynn Obaneer
Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
1525 Sherman Street
5th Floor
Denver, CO 80203
303-866-5117


January 11, 1996










CONNECTICUT

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Water Diversion Policy Act, CONN. GEN. STAT. S 22A-365
(1990).
Inventory of groundwater and surface water resources,
CONN. GEN. STAT. 22a-351-356, 380 (1992).

Regulations: N/A

Case Law: N/A

Related Information:
State of Connecticut Department of environmental
Protection, Proposal for the Connecticut Clean-up
Standard Regulations (1994).

II. Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: None

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Connecticut only regulates
groundwater use through its Water Diversion program.

Regulation Organization:

Mitigation Techniques:

Regulations:

Regulation Problems:

Judicial or Administrative Decisions:

III. Agency, Contact Person


January 11, 1996









DELAWARE

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Permit -- Required, DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 7, 6003
(1994).
Obligations of recipients of water allocations, DEL.
CODE ANN. tit. 7 6031 (1994).

Regulations
Regulations Governing the Allocation of Water, 1987.

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: Delaware does
not regulate artesian aquifers.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Delaware manages water resources
on a state-wide basis for the public benefit.

Regulation Organization: All water resources are managed on
a state-wide basis by the Division of Water Resources in the
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.

Regulations: Delaware regulates groundwater use through
permitting. Water allocation permits are required for any
activity that causes withdrawal of groundwater. Water is
allocated for municipalities, farmers, and industry. Use
allocation to farmers is based on irrigated acreage while
allocation to municipalities is based on the number of
households served. Additionally, all wells pumping 50,000
gpd or more must be registered.

Mitigation Techniques: Well requirements range from
specific isolation distance requirements to water
conservation efforts.
Mitigation subsequent to permitting is the
responsibility of the interfering user. A right-holder
that interfere's with another's well is responsible for
remedying the problem. Mitigation options often depend on
the circumstances. However, insurance usually covers and
well user's liability.

Regulation Problems: No major problems implementing water
restrictions have occurred. The statutes and regulations
are broadly written providing agency discretion and
flexibility. Additionally, the regulations followed well
established state statutes.


January 11, 1996










Judicial or Administrative Decisions: No litigation
regarding groundwater consumption has occurred. Litigation
is used to resolve interference disputes. Legal challenges
to state law is anticipated as Delaware statutes and
regulates do not formally recognize grandfathered rights.
To date the statutes have not formally been challenged.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Stewart Loevell
Environmental Scientist
Water Supply Branch
Ground Water Management Section
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19903
302-739-4793


January 11, 1996









DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Delaware River Basin Compact of 1961, Pub. L. No. 87-
328, 75 Stat. 688 (1961).
Delaware River Basin Water Code (March 1994).

Regulations:
Delaware River Basin Commission, Administrative
Manual, Rules of Practice and Procedure (1994).
Delaware River Basin Commission, Ground Water
Protected Area Regulations, Southeastern Pennsylvania,
Res. no. 80-18, (1988).

Case Law: N/A

Related Information:
Delaware River Basin Commission, Annual Report 1994.

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No artesian
regulation.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: The Delaware River Basin
Commission (DRBC) regulates groundwater withdrawals through
its permitting process.

Regulation Organization:

Regulations: All wells pumping 100,000 gpd or greater
during any 30 day period must obtain a permit.
Additionally, separate regulations applicable to protected
areas in the southeast portion of Pennsylvania require
permitting for 10,000 gpd or greater. All groundwater
regulation is accomplished through limitations included in
pumping permits. To determine appropriate mitigation tools
for inclusion in permits, the DRBC considers impact a new
well may cause, yields during droughts, and impacts on
perennial streams, to name a few.

Mitigation Techniques: Peak allocation limits and monthly
withdrawal rates are included in permits. However, the
Commission maintains authority to alter restrictions if
problems occur subsequent to permit issuance.
Well users are liable for any adverse effects their
withdrawal may cause. Such a user is required to make the
injured user whole, either by drilling a new well or paying
for municipal hook-up.

Regulation Problems: The primary regulation problem has
been tracking and identifying the large number of small


January 11, 1996










wells in the basin.


Judicial or Administrative Decisions: The federal Compact
has never been successfully contested.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Jeff Featherson
Delaware River Basin Commission
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, NJ 08628
609-883-9500


January 11, 1996









GEORGIA


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Groundwater Use Act of 1972, GA. CODE ANN. S 12-5
(___)-
Title 12 Amendment, S.B. No. 202, (1995)

Regulations:
*Groundwater Use Rules, GA. COMP. R. & REGS. r. 391-3-2
(1990).

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No regulation.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Georgia is in the process of
implementing groundwater use regulations.

Regulation Organization: Groundwater is managed on a state-
wide bases.

Regulations: All wells withdrawing 100,000 gpd require a
permit. These water users are required to show reasonable
use and no adverse affects to other well users. Generally,
groundwater use restrictions exist only in the southeast
portion of the state. In this area groundwater is managed
with production rates and timing restrictions based on
reasonable use. Water preferences are riparian based with
reasonable use requirements.

Mitigation Techniques: All non-agricultural users of
groundwater of more than 100,000 gpd must obtain a permit.
Permitees must show expected adverse effects on other users
and upon the aquifer from which the water is to be drawn,
among other things. All permits stipulate withdrawal rate
conditions under which the permit is valid. Semi-annual
reports are generally required of applicants.

Regulation Problems: Since extensive water management is
currently being implemented, the state has not encountered
any problems in addressing groundwater consumption.
However, they do expect some public resistance once
consumption is limited.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: Historically there
has been more than enough water in Georgia. Officials have
only recently noticed problems with water supplies. No
litigation has occurred.


January 11, 1996











III. Agency, Contact Person

William Frechette
Senior Geologist
Floyd Tower East, Suite 1166
205 Butler Street, SE
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
404-656-3094


January 11, 1996









HAWAII


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
State Water Code, HAW. REV. STAT S 174C (1987)

Regulations:
Hawaiian Water Rights Rules Draft, HAw. ADMIN. R.
13-172 (__ ).
Rules of Practice and Procedure for the Commission on
Water Resource Management, HAw. ADMIN. R. 13-167
(1988).
Protection of Instream Uses of Water, HAw. ADMIN. R.
13-169 (1988).
Amendments to Chapter 13-169, HAw. ADMIN. R. S 13-169-
49.1 (1992).
Hawaii Water Plan, HAW. ADMIN. R. S 13-170 (1988).
Designation and Regulation of Water Management Areas,
HAW. ADMIN. R. S 13-171.
Amendment to Chapter 13-171, HAW. ADMIN. R. S 13-171-60
to 13-171-62 (1993).

Case Law: N/A

Related Information:
Standard Water Use Permit Conditions

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No artesian
aquifer regulation.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: The Commission on Water Resource
Management oversees groundwater regulation for the state.
However, state-wide management is administered by
groundwater management districts.

Regulation Organization: The state regulates groundwater
use through groundwater management areas. All well users in
groundwater management areas are required to obtain a
permit. The only exception is individual domestic users.
Water use in Hawaii is based on the public trust doctrine.
Therefore, the Commission is the steward of the state's
groundwater and must manage the rights for the good of the
people.

Regulations: All permits have standard conditions.
According to 13-171-13, a permitted must show that the
proposed water use will not adversely impact the aquifer, is
reasonable, will not adversely affect another user, and is
consistent with public use, among other things.


January 11, 1996









Mitigation Techniques: The Commission has the authority to
alter permit conditions to respond to changing conditions.

Regulation Problems: The Commission has encountered
difficulties implementing the code because its
inconsistencies and undefined terms. In response, the
Commission issued declaratory rulings. Additionally, the
Commission had to determine how to handle existing user
rights when new water management areas were declared. To
date, the existing users go through the permitting process
first.
Hawaii has also encountered jurisdiction problems.
Agency overlap has occurred with the Department of Health,
which is also charged with protecting water quality.
Likewise, inconsistencies between agencies has been
troublesome.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: None.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Linore Nakama
Hydrologist
Commission on Water Resource Management
State of Hawaii
1151 Punchbowl Street
Room 227
Honolulu, HI 96813
808-587-0218 (direct phone number)


January 11, 1996










IDAHO

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
IDAHO CODE S 42-226, 227, 237a, 237g, (1994).

Regulations:
Rules for Conjunctive Management of Surface and
Ground Water Resources, IDAPA 37-03-11, (1994).

Case Law:
Musser v. the Idaho Department of Water Resources,
871 P.2d 809 (1994).
Idaho Conservation League v. The State of Idaho, 1994
Ida. 1 (1994).

Related Information:
Conjunctive Management-Idaho Water Policy in the Wake
of "Musser", Big River News, Northwest Water Law and
Policy Project, Volume 1, Number 4 (1995).
Lair Lucas, Conjunctive Management of Surface and
Groundwater in Idaho A conservationist Perspective,
Big River News, Northwest Water Law and Policy Project,
Volume 1, Number _, (1995).
News Release, Magic Valley Canal Companies File Legal
Challenge Against Conjunctive Management Rules, January
6, 1995.

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: Idaho does not
mitigate pressure loss in artesian aquifers. Instead,
aquifer development is halted when pressure loss occurs.
New users must then access municipal sources.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Historically, Idaho operated
under the presumption that water was plentiful. However, in
response to litigation in 1992 (Musser v. the Idaho
Department of Water Resources, 871 P.2d 809, 1992) the Idaho
Legislature passed Code 42-603 requiring conjunctive
management of groundwater and surface water.

Regulation Organization: Generally, water is managed by the
state through the Department of Water Resources, however,
water management districts are formed in problem areas. Two
types of management districts are used depending the
severity of the problem: groundwater management districts
and critical groundwater management districts. Both provide
increased and close water regulation.

Regulations: In 1994 the Idaho legislature passed new
groundwater reporting and measurement requirements to
increase water-use awareness and aid water right allocation.


January 11, 1996









The purpose of this legislation is to compare the amount of
water used versus actual water allocation rights.
Complimenting the 1994 legislation, the Idaho
Legislature granted authority to the Department of Water
Resources in 1995 to form groundwater measurement districts.
Based on a concept of local management, these districts are
only formed by community initiative by application to the
Department of Water Resources. These groups will manage
groundwater use in their geographic district using
techniques such as fee assessment for hydrologic monitoring,
measurement-device installation, and withdrawal limits.
This program is in the early stages of implementation having
received its first groundwater management district
application.
To address problems arising from conflicting
conservation and economic-development statutes, the
reasonable pumping depth concept was implemented. While
Idaho law provided appropriation rights, state law also
prohibits obstructing economic development of groundwater
resources. Thus, the Department of Water Resources, or
local groundwater management districts, examines on a case-
by-case basis occurrences of normal aquifer depletion which
cause a shallow well owner to file a priority call. The
interests of the junior and senior right holders are weighed
recognizing that to a "reasonable pumping depth," a new user
should have access the resource and a senior right holder
should drill a deeper well. This advances the "first in
time, first in right" doctrine without blocking full
economic development. However, what is reasonable has yet
to be determined.

Mitigation Techniques: The Conjunctive Management Rules
provide procedures for assessing and determining remedies
when a priority call is filed. These rules provide four
mitigation tools: cash payment, replacement, recharge, and
curtailment. Guidelines for cash payment for damages are
not yet developed. Water replacement is generally supplied
by surface water or municipal sources. Mitigation by
recharge is accomplished with water banks. This program
allows people with too much water to sell, or deposit in a
"bank," their excess water for transportation or reinjection
into overused aquifers. Mitigation by curtailment is used
only when necessary. Curtailment measures are gradually
implemented. Where aquifer depletion is critical, the state
may require applicants to prove that they will not adversely
impact existing users. Since applicants will be unable to
meet this requirement, further aquifer development is
effectively blocked.

Regulation Problems: Problems have occurred with Idaho's
recent groundwater regulation. Ongoing litigation is
challenging the legality of conjunctive management under the
premise that state law requires strict appropriation
management. A summary of the this litigation is included in
the state materials in the form of a news release.


January 11, 1996










Judicial or Administrative Decisions: Litigation is rare as
people in problem areas tend to know of groundwater problems
and voluntarily compensate by using alternative water
sources.


III. Agency, Contact Person

Dick Larson AND Gary Spackman
Idaho Department of Water Resources
1301 North Orchard Street
Boise, ID 83706-2237
208-327-7900


January 11, 1996









ILLINOIS

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
"Illinois Groundwater Protection Act". P.A. 85-863
(1987)
Water Use Act of 1983, P.A. 83-700, 1 (1984), 525
ILCS 45 (1984).
Water Use Authorities Act, P.A. 86-1324 816 (1990),
70 ILCS 3715 (1990).

Regulations:
Containment Rules for Agrichemical Facilities, ILL.
ADMIN. CODE tit. 8, I, 255 (1990).

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: Illinois does
not regulate artesian aquifer pressure.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Illinois does not have a
comprehensive regulation program. Drawdown is not regulated
by the state.

Regulation Organization: Although the state does not
regulate groundwater use, it does have 12 water authorities
formed by referendum. These water authorities are located
in the central part of the state where a deep sand aquifer
exists that is increasingly being used by growing urban
areas. The water authorities are generally formed to
safeguard the aquifer from big cities. The boundaries are
political, are often gerrymandered, and have little if any
correlation to water use or supply.
Additionally, the Illinois Department of Transportation
handles water quantity issues. The state Environmental
Protection Agency regulates community water supply, while
the Illinois Department of Public Health regulates water
quality issues for non-community water supplies.

Regulations: The only groundwater regulation is the
Groundwater Protection Act, which requires
notification/registration of wells with a capacity of
100,000 gpd or greater.

Mitigation Techniques: N/A

Regulation Problems: N/A

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: N/A


January 11, 1996










III. Agency, Contact Person

Rich Warrington
Associate Counsel
State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
217-782-5544


January 11, 1996










INDIANA

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Water Well Drilling Contractors, IND. CODE S 25-39-1.5
(___).
Water Rights: Emergency Regulation, IND. CODE S 13-2-
2.5 (1991).

Regulations:
Final Rules Concerning the Regulation of Water Well
Drilling, 310 IAC 16.5 (1992).
Digest, 310 IAC 16.5 (1992).

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: No, only in emergencies.

Regulation Organization: The Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water, regulates water issues on a
state-wide basis.

Regulations: Only high capacity well owners are required to
obtain permits (70 gpm or greater). These users are liable
if they cause water levels to decline such that domestic
well users are adversely affected. Generally, they must
supply water to the adversely affected well owner.

Mitigation Techniques: N/A

Regulation Problems: N/A

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: N/A

III. Agency, Contact Person

Patrick Ralston, Director
State of Indiana
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water
402 West Washington Street
Indiana Government Building-South, Room W256
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317-232-4160


January 11, 1996









IOWA


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:

Regulations:
Withdrawal, Diversion and Storage of Water, IAC S
567-50.1-9 (1993).
Water Permit or Registration, IAC S 567-51.1-7 (1987)
Criteria and Conditions for Authorizing Withdrawal,
Diversion and Storage of Water, IAC S 567-52.1-11
(1987).
Protected Water Sources, IAC S 567-53.1-7 (1986).
Criteria and Conditions for Permit Restrictions or
Compensation by Permitted users to Nonregulated users
due to Well Interference, IAC 567-54.1-10 (1993).

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: Iowa does not
have artesian aquifers, only a sloping aquifer in which some
pressure may exist. Iowa does, however, regulate springs.
Such a water user must apply for the same permit that a
regular water user must obtain. These springs are
classified as surface water. This is a gray area as springs
occur infrequently in Iowa.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Iowa regulates groundwater
consumption through its permitting requirements.

Regulation Organization: Groundwater use is managed on a
state-wide basis through the Department of Natural
Resources.

Regulations: Water is managed for beneficial uses and
resource protection. Prior rights are considered in
determining new water rights.
All wells pumping 25,000 gpd or greater must be
permitted. Although state codes guarantee rights to water,
access to water and water levels are not guaranteed.
However, restrictions are included in permits so as to
alleviate drawdown problems.
The permitting process imposes upon the permitted the
burden of showing that no adverse impacts to existing users
will occur from the proposed use of the aquifer. Otherwise,
the permitted is required to compensate other users for
adverse impacts. However, the state does not require 100
percent compensation and requires no compensation for minor
impacts. Once the permit is granted, a challenger claiming


January 11, 1996









interference has the burden to show interference and may be
liable for pumping tests and other costs if it is shown that
there is no interference.
A new user has several forms of compensation from which
to choose if his proposed use adversely affects an existing
user. These include drilling the existing user a deeper
well, providing alternative water sources, drilling a new
well, or providing the senior user with water from the new
user's well. Municipalities have the option of providing
free hook-up to the water-system for existing users if the
municipality is the new user.

Mitigation Techniques: The most common mitigation tool
incorporated into permits is pumping capacity restrictions.
Where one permitted has several wells drawing from the same
aquifer, the permit restricts the total amount of withdraw
from the aquifer for the wells in aggregate. Furthermore,
all wells have maximum annual withdrawal allowances. Other
restrictions include source constraints, pumping rates, and
location of withdrawal limitations.

Regulation Problems: N/A

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: Litigation is very
rare. Almost all problems are settled during the permitting
process.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Dennis Alt
Maggi Clover
State of Iowa
Department of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Building
DeMoines, Iowa 50319
515-281-6681


January 11, 1996









KANSAS


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Kansas Water Appropriation Act, K.S.A. 82a-705
(1991).
Groundwater Management District Act, K.S.A. 82a-1020
to 82a-1040 (1990).

Regulations:
Procedures for Obtaining and Maintaining a Water
Right in Accordance with the Kansas Water Appropriation
Act, 1995.
Rules and Regulations, Kansas Water Appropriation Act
(1994).
Rules and Regulations, Big Bend Groundwater
Management District No. 5, K.R.S. 5-25 (1988).

Case Law: N/A

Related Information:
Kansas State Board of Agriculture, Kansas Handbook of
Water Rights (brochure).

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Kansas manages groundwater use
on a state level through the Division of Water Resources.
The state Water Appropriation Act authorizes the state to
regulate water use.

Regulation Organization: Kansas water rights are based on
prior appropriation. However, priority rights do not
establish priority of use. The western part of the state is
closed to new appropriations because of declining water
levels. However, rights can be transferred or changed.
While Kansas regulates water on a state-wide basis,
there are regional-specific regulations. Additionally,
local water users can recommend to the Division that water
be managed specifically for their area and that a
groundwater management district be established. Currently
five such districts exist.

Regulations: All wells, with the exception of most domestic
wells, must be permitted. While proposed wells must meet a
safe yield analysis, specific regulations may vary
regionally. Applicants must plot any well within a half-
mile radius of the proposed well. Additionally, the
Division uses a two mile radius from the proposed well to
determine use and recharge. Groundwater consumption rates
are generally included in approved permits but are somewhat


January 11, 1996









flexible for temporary need increases. Pumping rates for
irrigation are restricted to the acreage originally
permitted. Thus, groundwater use cannot increase as
irrigated acreage increases.

Mitigation Techniques: Techniques may vary according to
region. However, all permits must meet a safe yield
analysis.

Regulation Problems: None.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: None addressing
conflicts over water allocation.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Jim Congrove
Environmental Scientist
Division of Water Resources
Kansas Department of Agriculture
901 South Kansas Avenue, Second Floor
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1283
913-2963717


January 11, 1996









KENTUCKY


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Application for Permit, K.R.S. 151.150 (Michie 1995).
Record and report of water withdrawn under permit,
K.R.S. 151.160 (Michie 1995).

Regulations:
401 K.A.R. Chapter 4 (currently under revision)

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: Artesian
aquifers do occur in Kentucky, however, existing regulations
only address capping requirements.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Kentucky does regulate
groundwater withdrawal.

Regulation Organization: Kentucky regulates groundwater
withdrawal on a state-wide basis through its permitting
program.
Kentucky does not have an absolute riparian system
although riparian water rights are reflected in the law.
State law grants water rights based on a useful purpose
requirement, water availability, and impacts to other water
rights holders.

Regulations: Under Kentucky's permitting program, all wells
with a capacity of 10,000 gpd (whether the well is pumping
groundwater, surface water, or both), must file for a
permit. The permit process requires notice of intended uses
and can be denied for impacts to other users. The Division
of Water develops pumping scenarios for proposed wells that
are forecasted to cause adverse impacts.

Mitigation Techniques: Depending on circumstances, the
Division of Water often limits the rate of withdrawal, and
sometimes implements timing requirements. All permits
include pumping limits that are based on geologic
information and production history of other local wells.
Additionally, groundwater withdrawal permits provide for
subsequent aquifer protection in order to address the
uncertainty of long-term impacts. These requirements
include immediate cessation of pumping and requirements for
supplying a user with a new source of water.


January 11, 1996










Regulation Problems: Kentucky has not encountered
regulation-related problems. However, the problems Kentucky
faces in managing groundwater allocation is geology.
Groundwater consumption problems in Kentucky are
generally related to mining and/or geology. The variety of
geology in Kentucky limits the areas where a large volume of
water can be accessed. The Division of Water has required
that miners adversely affecting other water-right holders
supply other right holders with water. Sometimes the miner
will provide the right holders with the very groundwater it
is pumping.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: None regarding
groundwater allocation or use.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Pamla Wood, Supervisor
Natural Resources Environmental Protection Cabinet
Division of Water
Water Resources Branch
Water Quantity Section
14 Reilly Road
Frankfurt, Kentucky 40601
502-564-3410

David Leo
Natural Resources Environmental Protection Cabinet
Division of Water
Ground Water Branch
14 Reilly Road
Frankfurt, Kentucky 40601
502-564-3410


January 11, 1996










LOUISIANA

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Utilization of Ground Water Resources, La. R.S.
38:3091, 3092, 3094, 3052, 3071, 3078, 3079, 3081
(1995).

Regulations: N/A

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Anyone can pump groundwater for
beneficial purposes. Groundwater levels are reportedly
rising in most areas.

Regulation Organization: Groundwater is managed on a state-
wide basis. There is, however, a groundwater management
commission comprised of five parishes located near Baton
Rouge. This commission only manages wells that pump 50,000
gpd or more. Although the state has had allocation
permitting authority for over 15 years, the power has never
been exercised.

Regulations: Well construction is permitted and wells must
be registered. This information is used to maintain a
groundwater data base. Every five years the state conducts
a major water use study that tracks quality and amount used
by parish.

Mitigation Techniques: N/A

Regulation Problems: N/A

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: No litigation has
occurred regarding groundwater consumption. However, a
conflict occurred involving several golf course developers
who installed irrigation wells that adversely affected other
well users. However, the problem was settled through
negotiation.


January 11, 1996










III. Agency, Contact Person


Beau Borlourchi
Water Resources Division
Office of Public Works
Louisiana Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 94245
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
504-379-1434


January 11, 1996










MAINE

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Site Location of Development, 38 M.R.S.A. 481-490
(1994).

Regulations:
Regulations, Site Location of Development, CODE ME. R.
371-378 (1992).

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Maine only regulates groundwater
for drinking water purposes. Public water supply
regulations require pump tests although possible adverse
impacts are not considered. State law does provide a cause
of action for property owners to sue to protect groundwater
rights but does not regulate private wells.
The Site Location Development act regulates and
protects groundwater from adverse effects of new development
as a result of development. This Act requires consideration
of groundwater impacts from proposed development prior to
approval.

Regulation Organization: N/A

Regulations: N/A

Mitigation Techniques: N/A

Regulation Problems: N/A

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: None

III. Agency, Contact Person

John Hopeck
Hydrogeologist
Department of Environmental Protection
State House Station #17
Augusta, ME 04330
207-287-7733


January 11, 1996









MARYLAND


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Water Appropriation Permit Statute, M.C.A. S 8-801 to
814 (_ ).

Regulations:
Water Appropriation Permit Regulations, MD. REGS. CODE
tit. 08, 05 (__

Case Law: N/A

Related Information:
Application for a Permit to Appropriate and Use
Waters of the State.
Application for Renewal of a Permit to Appropriate
and Use Waters of the State.
Aquifer Test Procedure
Impact Analysis Summary
Water Appropriation and Use Permit

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: None

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Maryland manages water
allocation on a state-wide basis. Allocation is based on
"water management levels." These levels are determined by
looking at historical water levels to find the most reliable
"pre-pumping" level, or the "pre-extensive use" level. This
level becomes the static level. Available drawdown is then
determined based on the static level. Eighty percent of the
amount of water above the static level becomes the water
management level. All permits are allocated based on their
impact on the water management level.

Regulation Organization: All water users are required to
have an allocation permit. Exceptions to this rule include
(1) individual domestic users, (2) farmers who use less than
an annual average of 10,000 gpd (for these farmers water
allocation permits are voluntary), and (3) water
requirements for extinguishing fires.

Regulations: The expected use and modelling of proposed
mining are primarily considered during the permitting
process. Mitigation tools are incorporated into permits.

Mitigation Techniques: Many mitigation techniques are used
on a case-by-case basis to address anticipated problems in
presented in permit applications.
Mitigation implemented subsequent to the permitting
process is generally determined by the nature of the


January 11, 1996









problem. Because the state does not protect water levels
the adequacy of a user's capture system, or well, is at
issue when adverse effects occur. In such cases, the Agency
conducts investigations to determine to whom the problem
belongs. The Agency generally works to help resolve the
problems.
The Agency has dealt with both expected and unexpected
unreasonable impacts. In one instance where the
unreasonable impact was expected, a trust was established to
deepen or replace affected wells (the state government
established the trust in response to impacts resulting from
a new prison facility). However, when an unexpected
unreasonable impact occurs, the user causing the problem is
responsible for mitigating the damage. In these instances
the Agency helps to develop the most appropriate mitigation
tool. Options the Agency will consider include:
(1) drilling another well further away from the problem
to move the cone of depression,
(2) shifting pumping between wells so as to lower
pumping levels near the problem area.
Well owners must bear the cost of drilling a new well where
increased water withdrawal has rendered a well inadequate.

Regulation Problems: None.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: No litigation
regarding water allocation.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Matthew Pajerowski, Chief
Water Appropriation
Permits Section
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building, E-2
Annapolis, Maryland 21401-2397
410-974-2456


January 11, 1996









MASSACHUSETTS


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes: forthcoming

Regulations: 310 CMR 36 available through the state-house
book store at 617-727-2834

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Massachusetts regulates
groundwater use through its permitting process.

Regulation Organization: Groundwater is managed on a state-
wide basis by watershed by the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Water.

Regulations: All wells withdrawing 100,000 gpd or greater
must be permitted. Permits are based on actual use rather
than capacity.

Mitigation Techniques: Groundwater production restrictions
are incorporated into the permits. The type of mitigation
tool used depends on the situation.
In addition to protecting aquifer levels, Massachusetts
practices environmental well management. Thus, the Division
may institute "time of year" withdrawal rates and allocate
groundwater to control stream volume. The Division also
monitors wetlands, ponds, and rare species for affects of
withdrawals.
The Division has enforcement power to modify withdrawal
rates to mitigate problems occurring after the permit
process is complete.
In cases of well interference, the Division may impose
water sharing, timing, or cycling of withdrawal conditions.
When a larger well user adversely affects a smaller well
user, the larger well owner is required to replace water to
the smaller user by whatever means is appropriate. These
mitigation tools are designed to be "people" related.

Regulation Problems: Problems occurring during the
program's implementation involved identification of proper
pond and stream levels. The Division also had to address
previously occurring environmental impacts.
Additionally, the Division has encountered problems
identifying user groups, or those who use 100,000 gpd or
more. Since the state law regulates by volume it was


January 11, 1996










difficult to determine which users required permits.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: Although permitees
can appeal their restrictions, there has been no litigation.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Lealdon Langley
State of Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Water Supply
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
617-574-6882


January 11, 1996









MICHIGAN


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes: N/A

Regulations: N/A

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Michigan does not regulate
groundwater consumption. However, users must comply with a
reporting requirement. The recently implemented Water Use
Reporting program is part of the Great Lakes initiative to
collect data and track groundwater use.

Regulation Organization: Existing regulation is conducted
on a state-wide basis by watershed basin. While the state
does not permit groundwater use, the new water reporting
program may lead to capacity permitting.

Regulations: N/A

Mitigation Techniques: N/A

Regulation Problems: Existing groundwater-use problems are
associated with the Water Use Reporting program. Public
awareness and communication is inadequate to overcome public
fears of water taxation and use restrictions. Currently the
agency is not empowered to implement either restriction.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: Water use conflicts
are settled in court and generally only occur during
droughts. However, litigation is rare because the burden of
proving the historic amount of water used is difficult. The
new Water Use Reporting program will track this information.
The goal and outcome of litigation is to either get water
back or decrease withdrawal by the other party.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Chris Potvin
Land and Water Management
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
517-335-3505


January 11, 1996









MINNESOTA


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Water Diversion and Appropriation, MINN. STAT. S
103G.295 (1994).

Regulations:
Minnesota Rules, Public Water Resources, MINN. R.
6115.0600 (_ ).

Case Law: N/A

Related Information:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Water, Minnesota's Water Appropriation Program,
(1990).

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Groundwater is allocated through
permits required for wells pumping 10,000 gpd or 1 million
gpy or more. Although Minnesota is considered a "water
rich" state, the state's Water Appropriation Program
allocates water to protect and preserve the resource.

Regulation Organization: Water allocation is conducted on a
decentralized, state-wide basis through the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources. Water appropriation is
based on riparian rights modified by the concept of
reasonable use. Furthermore, Minnesota has established a
priority system for handling conflicting water rights.
Because both surface and groundwater use must be permitted,
the state encourages conjunctive management.

Regulations: Applications for groundwater use are reviewed
to determine the effects of proposed use on both the
environment and senior users. As to groundwater, safe
yields are based on the point at which groundwater quality
degrades with additional withdrawals. Likewise, yields are
established when longterm average withdrawals exceed
recharge rates.

Mitigation Techniques: Pumping rates and volume limits are
the general mitigation tools incorporated into permits to
regulate groundwater use. All permits include a provision
requiring the holder to supply like kind and quality water
to another user if the holder adversely impacts another.
The permits also allow the agency to modify, restrict, or
suspend groundwater use if other problems or conditions
arise subsequent to permit issuance.


January 11, 1996










Regulation Problems: No specific regulation problems have
occurred. However, the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources has encountered issues regarding groundwater use
and wetlands protection.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: Some permits have
been contested through the permit hearing procedure.
However, these disputes are usually negotiated or addressed
with water management plans.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Jim Japps
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Waters
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4032
612-297-2835 direct
612-296-4800 general


January 11, 1996









MISSISSIPPI


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Water Resources; Regulation and Control (pertinent
parts), MIss. CODE ANN. S 51-3 (1993).

Regulations:
Surface Water and Groundwater Use and Protection
Regulations (1993).

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: Mississippi
does not specifically regulate artesian pressure although
mining of confined aquifers is regulated by general
groundwater regulations.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: The Department of Environmental
Quality, Office of Land and Water Resources, regulates
groundwater consumption on a beneficial-use basis, although
it has not prioritized the use categories. This regulation
is conducted on a state-wide basis.

Regulation Organization: Mississippi uses neither riparian
or appropriation rights to determine groundwater-use rights.
In 1985 the state abrogated its prior appropriation
preference by claiming that the resources belonged to the
state who was therefore responsible for managing them for
the good of all users. This legislation gave the state
police power to regulate groundwater use.

Regulations: Mississippi regulates groundwater use through
permitting. All wells with a casing size of six inches in
diameter or greater must be permitted. Permits are granted
where no immediate impacts to the aquifer is expected.

Mitigation Techniques: To determine whether a new well will
adversely impact another user, the agency looks at the type
of aquifer (confined/unconfined), the rate of decline and
other groundwater modelling factors. Permits are denied if
any adverse impacts will occur. Otherwise, the use permit
is granted with annual and daily maximum withdrawal limits.
These permits also include a condition that withdrawal
limits may be reduced in the future.

Regulation Problems: Since the program's inception in 1985,
the agency has encountered few problems with its
implementation. The primary problem was public resistance.


January 11, 1996











Judicial or Administrative Decisions: Public resistance to
the program's implementation resulted in some litigation
which had no effect on the law itself.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Mr. Charles Branch
Office of Land and Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 10631
Jackson, Mississippi 39289-0631
601-961-5200


January 11, 1996










MISSOURI

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes: N/A

Regulations: N/A

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: None.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: None.

Regulation Organization: The state of Missouri only
requires major water users to register their wells and
report water consumption. The Division of Geology and Land
Survey has no enforcement authority, thus, many users do not
even report their wells.

Regulations: N/A

Mitigation Techniques: N/A

Regulation Problems: N/A

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: N/A

III. Agency, Contact Person

Jim Vandike
Division of Geology and Land Survey
Department of Natural Resources
Post Office Box 250
Rolla, MO 65402
314-368-2100


January 11, 1996










MONTANA


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Controlled ground water areas, M.A.R. 85-2-506
(1993).
Limiting withdrawals, modification of order, M.A.R.
85-2-507 (1993).
Controlled ground water areas, permits to
appropriate, M.A.R. 85-2-508 (1993).

Regulations: No regulations permitting process is
addressed in M.R.S. 85-2-300 (forthcoming).

Case Law: N/A

Related Information:
Water Resources Division, Department of Health and
Environmental Science, Montana Water Plan, November 2,
1992.
Water Resources Division, Department of Health and
Environmental Science, Montana Ground Water Plan,
Draft, November 14, 1994.
David Amman, Barbara Cosens, and Joan Specking,
Negotiation of the Montana-National Park Service
Compact, RIVERS, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 35-45.

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: None.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: New water users must apply for a
permit through which the state manages groundwater use.

Regulation Organization:

Regulations: New water users must obtain permits prior to
drilling a well. Applicants must file the proposed system
design, show that water is available, and list any adverse
effects on existing water rights. Ultimately, the permitted
must show that the water rights of a prior appropriator will
not be adversely affected.
Additionally, the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact
Commission and the National Park Service entered into the
first state and federal compact to protect hydrothermal
systems within the Yellowstone National Park. The compact
protects Yellowstone's hydrothermal features by extending
federal protection to a controlled groundwater area that
extends beyond the park's boundaries. The compact provides
a framework by which the state and federal government will
work in cooperation to manage development of the area's
water resources.


January 11, 1996









Mitigation Techniques: As water supplies become fully
appropriated, watershed basins can be closed to new
appropriations. Additionally, controlled groundwater areas
may be created if groundwater withdrawals exceed recharge,
if groundwater levels are declining, and if contaminant
migration and degradation are occurring.

Regulation Problems: Historically Montana has not done much
to regulate groundwater consumption so that no problems have
occurred. However, the state is just starting to work on
strengthening consumption regulation.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: Litigation is the
primary tool for dispute resolution. The Division rarely
participates in litigation usually doing so when the court
requests technical assistance. Existing law has not been
challenged.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Rich Moy
Water Resources Division
Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation
1520 East 6th Avenue
Helena, MN 59620-2301
406-444-6633


January 11, 1996









NEBRASKA

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Ground Water Management Act, NEB. REV. STAT. S 46-656
to 674 (1992).
Irrigation and Regulation of water, NEB. REV. STAT.
46-(pertinent parts) (1994).

Regulations: N/A

Case Law: N/A

Related Information:
Natural Resources Districts

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No regulation.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Nebraska does not regulate
groundwater consumption.

Regulation Organization: Existing groundwater regulation is
on a state-wide basis. However, groundwater management
districts can be formed if problems arise. Two such
districts currently exist (Upper Republican Natural
Resources Division and the Central Platte Natural Resources
Division).

Regulations: Groundwater users have equal access to
groundwater. Users, however, are required to have a
groundwater management plan.

Mitigation Techniques: N/A

Regulation Problems: N/A

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: N/A

III. Agency, Contact Person

Jerry Bowen OR Martin Cleveland
Papio-Missouri River Natural Resource District
8901 South 154th Street
Omaha, NE 68138
402-444-6222


January 11, 1996










NEVADA


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Underground water and wells, NEV. REV. STAT. ANN. S
534.110 (1993).

Regulations:
Regulations for water well and related drilling, NEV.
ADMIN. CODE ch. 534, S 010 to 340 (1990).

Case Law: N/A

Related Information:
Summary of Statutory Procedure in Making Application
for a Water Right and Filing Proofs of Appropriation
and Fees Set by Statute (1994).

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Nevada permits groundwater wells
to balance recharge rates through its State Engineer Office.

Regulation Organization: The state is divided into
hydrographic basins upon which water is managed. However,
groundwater and surface water are not regulated as
interrelated resources.

Regulations: Several factors are considered for permitting
new wells. First, recharge rates and demands are considered
to determine the availability of water. Second, potential
adverse impacts are identified. Third, public interest is
considered to determine whether there is a better use for
the water as certain basins are designated for preferred
users.
The state does not have groundwater regulations, but
instead uses State Engineer Orders.

Mitigation Techniques: Since permits are granted based on
balancing withdrawal with recharge, restrictions generally
include limits on the speed of withdrawal and well spacing.

Regulation Problems: Nevada has encountered conflicts over
adverse affects to senior users as rural areas became
urbanized. Options generally include hook-ups to the
municipal system or drilling a new well. If the difference
in price between the cost of redrilling and hook-up is $500
or less, the state can require the senior user to hook up to
the municipal water line.
When unexpected problems arise the state can order
pumping cessation.


January 11, 1996










Judicial or Administrative Decisions: Litigation over water
rights is rare. The only water rights claim filed in the
past few years had no legal effect as the claim was
erroneous. Otherwise, most disputes are petitions for
review of State Engineer decisions. A good administrative
record and legal allowances for reasonable water declines
are factors attributed to infrequent litigation.
However, tribal water rights are currently being
litigated in Nevada v. U.S. and Las Vegas Pauite Tribe,
(docket number and filing date forthcoming). The dispute
arose when the Pauite Tribe constructed several golf courses
in a water basin where water rights were completely
appropriated. The issue in this case is whether a reserved
right to groundwater exists on tribal lands. The dispute
has been in settlement negotiations for the past year.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Mike Randall
State Engineers Office
Water Resources
123 West Nye Lane
Capital Complex
Carson City, NV 89710
702-687-4380

Susan Joseph Taylor
Counsel for Adjudications
State Engineers Office
Water Resources
123 West Nye Lane
Capital Complex
Carson City, NV 89710
702-687-4380


January 11, 1996










NEW HAMPSHIRE

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes: N/A

Regulations: N/A

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: None.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: New Hampshire does not regulate
groundwater. State law only requires the registration of
wells pumping 20,000 gpd or greater.

Regulation Organization: N/A

Regulations: The state does permit for water quality,
construction, and well head protection. The Agency
acknowledges that it will eventually regulate water quantity
eventually. However, New Hampshire is still a "home rule"
state where control remains at local levels making state
regulation difficult to pass.

Mitigation Techniques: N/A

Regulation Problems: N/A

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: N/A

III. Agency, Contact Person

Judy Maloney
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
Groundwater Protection Bureau
Post Office Box 95
Concord, NH 03302
603-271-3303

Mr. Rene Pelletier
Water Supply Engineering Bureau
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
603-271-2951


January 11, 1996


__










NEW JERSEY

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Water Supply Management, N.J.S.A. 58:1A et seq.
(___).

Regulations:
Water Supply Allocation Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:19
(1995).

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: None.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection regulates water use for the state.

Regulation Organization: Critical management areas are
established where high chloride levels, or saltwater
intrusion, occurs. In these areas, permitees must file
projected groundwater withdrawal rates.

Regulations: New Jersey's groundwater-use regulations
primarily affect large users. Private users are not
formally regulated. All wells pumping water at a rate
greater than 70 gpm must have a water allocation permit.
Standard conditions for permits include monthly pumping
restrictions, reporting requirements, and static water level
monitoring.

Regulation Problems: New Jersey's primary regulation
problem is public resistance due to the cost of the cost of
alternative groundwater sources.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: While litigation is
rare, conflicts are usually handled out of court.
Permittees must initiate any investigation to first
determine whether they are the cause of the problem.
However, two issues arose through the use of critical
management areas. Litigation in 1989 resulted in amendments
to the Critical Area Program. In 1993, the law was amended
granting the Agency authority to establish study-based
criteria for determining groundwater withdrawal rates as
studies required.


January 11, 1996










III. Agency, Contact Person


Tom McKee
Water Planning Board
609-292-3131

Diane Zalaskus
Bureau of Water Allocation
609-292-2957

Address for both:
Department of Environmental Protection
CN426
Trenton, NJ 08625


January 11, 1996









NEW MEXICO


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Water Law, New Mexico Statutes Annotated, N.M. Stat.
Ann. 72 (pertinent parts) (1994).

Regulations:
Rules and Regulations Governing Drilling of Wells and
Appropriation and Use of Ground Water in New Mexico
State Engineer, 1991.

Case Law:
Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy Dist. v. Peters, 52
N.M. 148 (1948).

Related Information:
General information: Pecos Valley Artesian
Conservancy District.
State Engineer Office Memorandum: Legal Foundations
for Water Conservation, June 17, 1994.

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: New Mexico
Statute 73-1-19 authorizes formation of artesian conservancy
districts. The only district in existence to date is the
Pecos Artesian Conservancy District.
The Pecos Artesian Conservancy District guards the
artesian aquifer in the Pecos basin by challenging the State
Engineer to take certain actions. Although no enforcement
authority was granted, the District effectively enforces
artesian-related regulations by initiating litigation. For
instance, the Pecos Artesian Conservancy District enjoined a
well owner from unpermitted use of the artesian aquifer even
though the well was located outside of the district. Pecos
Valley Artesian Conservancy Dist. v. Peters, 52 N.M. 148
(1948).
This District also works in coordination with the State
Engineers office to protect the artesian resource. For
instance, the District took over well monitoring and
maintenance from the New Mexico State Engineer.
Alternatively, the District may petition the state
legislature to enact new laws to protect the aquifer. Often
the State Engineer will protest such actions as they acquire
the responsibilities that confer new regulation. The
District may directly challenge the State Engineer to enact
more rules and regulations.
Apart from litigation and regulation, the District
offers a public fund loan program to farmers for
conservation projects.


January 11, 1996









Decreasing Aquifer Levels: New Mexico comprehensively
manages ground and surface water use.

Regulation Organization: New Mexico groundwater regulation
is conducted through the State Engineer's office and
groundwater management districts. The state's 32 declared
basins cover approximately 81 percent of the state, outside
of which the state engineer has no authority.

Regulations: New groundwater users must file an application
with the State Engineer's office. Applicants have the
burden of proof to show that unappropriated water is
available and that granting their application will not
impair existing water right-holder. The state engineer has
the authority to deny the permit if no water is available or
if a new well would impair water use. Decisions can be
appealed in court. Additionally, water right-holders are
not restricted to hearings before the state engineer for
damages to water rights. Exhaustion of available
administrative procedures is not a condition for filing a
suit for protection or redress of water rights.

Mitigation Techniques: Where decreasing aquifer levels
occur, the state engineer must manage water consumption for
economic and long-term uses. Use of mitigation techniques
such as well spacing, timing, and pumping rates are common.

Regulation Problems: Existing regulation problems exists
with water levels in the Albuquerque area where levels are
decreasing faster than estimated. To ameliorate the problem
the state is considering recharging the aquifer with sewage
effluent and/or surface recharge of federal groundwater.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: In general,
challenges to state law is rare. However, artesian
conservancy districts often institute litigation to compel
the State Engineer to enforce or add regulations.
Additionally, the artesian conservancy districts have been
litigating for 40 years the adjudication of water rights in
several water basins.
A significant case regarding artesian conservancy
districts is the Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy Dist. v.
Peters, 50 N.M. 165 (1945). In this case New Mexico courts
held that a well owner that taps artesian aquifer waters or
other underground water that is already appropriated has no
right to use such waters, even though his well is located
outside the boundaries of any previously defined underground
stream or artesian basin.


January 11, 1996











III. Agency, Contact Person


State Engineer Office, Water Rights Division
David Stone
Bataam Memorial Building, Room 101
Sante Fe, New Mexico 87504-5102
505-827-6120

Dennis Karnes
Pecos Artesian Conservancy District
P.O. Box 1346
Roswell, NM 88202
505-622-7000


January 11, 1996










NEW YORK

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
*Environmental Conservation Law, Article 15, Title 15

Regulations:
eWater Supply Applications, Exclusive of Long Island
Wells, 601.
eApplications for Long Island Wells, 602.

Case Law:

Related Information:
*Water Conservation Program Form
oDRAFT Water Conservation Manual, 1989.
*Public Water Supply Program, Applicant's Guide.

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: New York, in general, does not
regulate groundwater consumption. To a degree, water supply
is regulated by five drinking water permits. Any well that
pumps 45 gpm or greater must be permitted. Thus, most
permits are for municipalities, corporations, and
transportation authorities.

Regulation Organization: The New York Bureau of Water
Resources regulates the state with the exception of Long
Island. Groundwater regulations do exist for Long Island.

Regulations: In Long Island, under regulation 602, all
applicants for new water use rights must submit a water
conservation plan. Certain layers of the aquifer cannot be
mined due to salt water intrusion. Thus, permits are either
denied or altered to alleviate adverse effects.

Mitigation Techniques: In Long Island mitigation tools are
often incorporated in permits. The most common limitation
is a pumping restriction. In fact, some areas have blanket
pumping limits. Additionally, where irrigation water is
supplied by municipal water systems, local jurisdictions
will impose use restrictions.

Regulation Problems: N/A

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: None regarding use
conflicts.


January 11, 1996










III. Agency, Contact Person


Michael Holt, P.E.
Water Supply Section
Bureau of Water Resources
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-3504

Rob Schneck
Water Supply Program
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
SUNY Building 40
Stoneybrook, NY 11790-2356
518-457-9514










































January 11, 1996 58









NORTH CAROLINA


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Regulation of Use of Water Resources (Capacity Use
Areas), N.C. Gen. Stat. 143-215.15-17, 22 (1994).

Regulations:
Capacity Use Area Water Withdrawal, NC Admin. Code
title 15A, r. 2E.0100 and .0200 (July 1988).

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: North Carolina has not yet
restricted groundwater consumption. However, use
restrictions may exist in a water management area.

Regulation Organization: The state has the power to
designate Capacity Use Areas. This process is initiated by
private parties who conduct a capacity use investigation.
This investigation is conducted in cooperation between the
Department of Water resources (conducts research) and the
Division of Environmental Management (controls permitting).
rules are formed when a capacity use area is formed. No
rules currently exist although users cannot adversely impact
other users.
Only one capacity use area has been designated. The
reason for its designation was the establishment of a
phosphate mine. However, the expected drawdown did not
occur so that groundwater consumption was never an issue.

Regulations: In general, North Carolina does not regulate
groundwater consumption.

Mitigation Techniques: Local water management plans are the
closest thing to mitigation techniques that North Carolina
uses. Such a plan has been implemented in the central
coastal plain where decreasing aquifer levels and threats of
saltwater intrusion exist. Currently no formal action is
being undertaken to mitigate the problems. However, the
Water Resources Division uses certain processes to alleviate
demands upon the aquifer.
The division works to increase public awareness of the
problems. Water suppliers for 500 or more households must
submit a local water supply plan. This plan projects water
demands and supply for a certain period of time. Likewise,
this increases awareness while highlighting potential


January 11, 1996










problems. The Water Resources Division also works with
users to help determine which aquifer to use and possible
mitigation techniques that may be implemented. All such
activities are cooperative efforts as the Water Resources
Division has no enforcement power.

Regulation Problems: The state has not defined "adverse
effect" or "excessive drawdown."

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: N/A

III. Agency, Contact Person

Bryan Wagner
Groundwater Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
919-715-6163 ext. 406

Nat Wilson
North Carolina Department of Health and Natural Resources
Water Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
919-733-4064



























January 11, 1996 60










NORTH DAKOTA


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
*Chapter 61 Century Water Code

Regulations:
eChapter 89 North Dakota Administrative Code

Case Law:

Related Information:
eFlowing Well Pressure Changes in the Knife River Areas
eWater Well Construction and Water Well Pump
Installation, Article 33-18

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: North Dakota
regulates wells mining groundwater from artesian aquifers.
Artesian aquifer wells and other groundwater wells are
similarly regulated. In particular, the State requires an
efficient capture system with a valve to control flow.
Existing requirements address free flowing artesian wells.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Groundwater consumption is
regulated on a local basis, although the State Water
Commission is the principle regulatory agency.

Regulation Organization: The State Water Commission works
in conjunction with county water management districts and
other special districts, designed to resolve specific
issues.

Regulations: All permit applications are reviewed for
possible impacts on senior users, according to the state's
prior appropriation water rights system. Mitigation
techniques for adverse impacts are not addressed in
groundwater use permits. However, if a junior user impacts
a senior user, the State Engineer has the authority to shut
down a junior user or require the junior user to supply the
senior user with water. Parties can challenge the action in
court.
All commercial, industrial, and municipal water users
are required to obtain a permit. Permits are not required
for domestic or stock wells.

Mitigation Techniques: When a junior user adversely impacts
a senior user the State Engineer has the authority to "shut
down" the junior user or require the junior user to supply
water to the senior user. All parties have the option to
challenge these decisions in court.


January 11, 1996










Regulation Problems: None reported.


Judicial or Administrative Decisions: None regarding water
consumption.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Milton Lindvig
Water Appropriations Director
North Dakota Water Commission
900 East Boulevard
Bismarck, ND 58505

Alan Wanek
Groundwater Hydrologist
North Dakota State Water Commission
900 E. Boulevard
Bismarck, ND 58505
701-328-2754

Gordon Baester
Water Rights Supervisor
North Dakota State Water Commission
900 E. Boulevard
Bismarck, ND 58505
701-328-3441


January 11, 1996









OHIO


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:

Regulations:
eDivision of Water, Chapter 1521.

Case Law:

Related Information:
*Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Water
Fact Sheet.
*Water Rights, An Overview of Ohio Water Withdrawal
Law.
*Water Withdrawals in Ohio, An Overview of Ohio's Water
Withdrawal Facility Registration Program.

II. Legal Framework Description

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: None.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Ohio does not regulate
groundwater use.

Regulation Organization: Existing regulations are managed
state-wide. Water diversion is managed by basin.

Regulations: Groundwater withdrawal is not permitted.
However, industrial wells with a capacity of 100,000 gpd or
greater must be registered. Well logs and pumping test
results must also be filed with an annual withdrawal report.

Mitigation Techniques: The Division of Water becomes
involved, however, when problems or litigation arise. An
investigation is conducted of the conflict after which
technical recommendations are made in report form.
Recommendations usually include some combination of well
spacing and pumping schedules. The reports do not address
social or economic matters.
Responses to these reports vary as the Division of
Water has no enforcement power. Although litigation is a
possible response, there is very little case law. Ohio has
no cases that have gone through the entire process, although
there are several cases currently being litigated.

Regulation Problems: The primary problem the Division has
encountered is its lack of enforcement power.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: N/A


January 11, 1996










VI. Agency, Contact Person

Rebecca Petty
Division of Water
Water Resources Section
1939 Fountain Square
Building E-1
Columbus, Ohio 43224
614-265-6744


January 11, 1996









OREGON


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
*Ground Water Act of 1955, O.R.S. S 537.505 (1995).

Regulations:
oStatutory Ground Water Terms, Oregon Administrative
Rules, Chapter 690, Division 8, Water Resources
Department.
*Ground Water Interference with Surface Water, Oregon
Administrative Rules, Chapter 690, Division 9, Water
Resources Department.

Case Law: N/A

Related Information:
Conditions for Groundwater Applications.

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Oregon permits groundwater use
on a case-by-case basis groundwater use.

Regulation Organization: Regulation is conducted on a
state-wide basis. However, the state encourages creation of
local basin councils to work in conjunction with state
efforts. The purpose of this approach is to respond to
problems of getting municipalities to recognize the
correlation between land planning and water use. The state
also seeks to promote local input, facilitate cooperation,
and give water users on the local level a greater sense of
control.
To accomplish these objectives, the state issues a
groundwater use right to basin councils. The councils then
make contracts with users and operates within the boundaries
of the state granted permit.

Regulations: All wells require permits except for (1)
domestic wells pumping up to 15,000 gpd, (2) livestock
wells, (3) small community well less than 50,000 gpd, and
(4) irrigation wells for small, non commercial gardens.
Permit issuance is base on groundwater availability.
The permit usually includes a pumpage rate as part of permit
conditions. Rates vary depending on availability and
impacts on other users. When permits are denied the state
works with the party to help find and provide an alternative
groundwater source.


January 11, 1996










Mitigation Techniques: Pumping conditions are incorporated
into permits. Conditions vary depending primarily upon
resource availability.

Regulation Problems: Oregon's primary problem in
groundwater management was getting municipalities to
recognize the correlation between land use planning and
protection and conservation of water resources. The
permitting process has helped to improve this awareness.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: Litigation is rare as
the state works with parties whose permits have been denied
to find alternative groundwater sources.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Steve Applegate
Water Resources Department of Oregon
158 12th Street NE
Salem, OR 97210
503-378-3739


January 11, 1996










PENNSYLVANIA

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes: N/A

Regulations: N/A

Case Law:
State College Borough Water Authority v. Board of
Supervisors of Halfmoon Township, 659 A.2d 640 (Pa.
Comnw. 1995).

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: None.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Pennsylvania does not regulate
groundwater consumption. However, the Office of Water
Quality maintains well volume information which it inputs
into a data base for aquifer mapping purposes. Currently
the state regulates only groundwater quality.

Regulation Organization: Pennsylvania law recognizes
riparian rights, but has amended the rights so as to
recognize that groundwater is a resource that belongs to all
citizens and should be managed for the common good. Water
regulation is carried out on a state-wide basis.

Regulations: Despite state level regulation and the absence
of groundwater consumption regulation, groundwater use in
portions of the state are regulated by interstate water
management commissions. The eastern-third of the state is
part of the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). The
center portion of the state is part of the Susquehanna River
Basin Commission (SRBC). The remaining western portion of
the state is governed by Pennsylvania state law.

Mitigation Techniques/Regulation Problems: Pennsylvania
state water law is primarily comprised of adopted English
common law and the Water Rights Act of 1939. This Act
requires permits for surface water withdrawal by public
water supply groups. The character of the state law makes
it difficult to apply to current disputes which generally
are over public water supply rights to serve a particular
area. Because of the uncertainty of litigation, expense,
and time, most people settle out of court.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: Pennsylvania court
held in State College Borough Water Authority v. Board of
Supervisors of Halfmoon Township, 659 A.2d 640 (Pa. Comnw.
1995), that the regional water commission decision preempts


January 11, 1996










local decisions regarding land-use decisions that affect
groundwater.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Pam Bishop AND John Diehl
Department of Environmental Resources
Office of Chief Counsel
9th Floor, 400 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8464
717-787-7060


January 11, 1996










RHODE ISLAND


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes: N/A

Regulations: N/A

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: None.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: In general, Rhode Island does
not regulate groundwater use. Existing state law regulates
groundwater quality and public water supply.

Regulation Organization: The state does have authority to
regulate groundwater through its wetland regulations. If a
well causes aquifer draw down and affects a wetland, the
Department of Environmental management has the authority to
regulate groundwater consumption in order to repair the
wetland.

Regulations: N/A

Mitigation Techniques: N/A

Regulation Problems: N/A

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: N/A

III. Agency, Contact Person

Ernie Panciera
Department of Environmental Regulation
Division of Groundwater Management
291 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908
401-277-2234


January 11, 1996









SOUTH CAROLINA


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
oGroundwater Use Act

Regulations:
oWater Resources Commission, Ch. 121
oWater Use Regulation (Amendment 5?).

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: None.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: South Carolina regulates
groundwater consumption in designated areas and requires
consumption reports in remaining areas.

Regulation Organization: While the state currently operates
under its Groundwater Use Act, a water management plan is
being developed. Existing water management is conducted on
a state-wide basis and is not based on watersheds.

Regulations: Under existing laws, all wells within
designated areas must be permitted. The two designated
areas in existed are located in the southeast and southwest
regions of the state. All other well users must report
consumption.

Mitigation Techniques: Techniques such as well spacing and
timing restrictions are implemented on a case-by-case basis.

Regulation Problems: Groundwater withdrawal regulations is
problematic in the southeastern portion of the state,
specifically among Hilton Head, Beaufort, and Savannah.
Much of the problem is transboundary in nature, as Savannah
and the southern portion of South Carolina use the same
aquifer. Saltwater intrusion is occurring in this aquifer.
The primary problem is that South Carolina's groundwater
regulation of this aquifer is attenuated by withdrawal
across the Georgia state line in Savannah.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: None.


January 11, 1996











III. Agency, Contact Person


Mike Bennet
Drinking Water Protection
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803-734-0755

Walton McCloud, Counsel
Office of General Counsel
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803-734-4910


January 11, 1996









SOUTH DAKOTA


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
eWater Rights Law, State of South Dakota, Sections 1-
40-15 through 1-40-20, 1-40-30, Chapters 34A-2A, 43-17
and 46-1 through 46-10A, Effective July 1, 1994.

Regulations:
*S.D. ADMIN. R. Title 74 (1993).

Case Law:
*Fraser v. Water Rights, 294 NW 2d 784 (S.D. 1980)
eState of South Dakota, Water Management Board,
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decision
Related Information:
*John H. Davidson, South Dakota Groundwater Protection
Law, 40 S.D. L. Rev. 1 (1995).

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: While artesian
wells do occur in South Dakota, there is no direct statutory
protection of aquifer pressure.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: In general, South Dakota does
not permit groundwater withdrawal. However, drawdown is a
major issue in the state. Currently the state is monitoring
approximately 1700 wells. It is noted, however, that the
many unmaintained, abandoned, or free flowing wells
significantly contribute to aquifer drawdown and should be
addressed prior to restricting new users.

Regulation Organization: Groundwater is managed on a state-
wide basis. All existing groundwater users are notified of
new permit applications. These users have an opportunity to
comment on the permit application and may challenge the
permit in administrative hearings before the Water
Management Board.

Regulations: While there is no actual program designed to
regulate groundwater consumption, engineers, through the
permitting process, consider potential adverse impacts.

Mitigation Techniques: No mitigation techniques are used
per se, but the Department considers and occasionally issues
permits based on timing conditions. Mitigation techniques
may also vary by season and type.

Regulation Problems: N/A

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: Litigation is rare as
most disputes are settled during the permitting process.


January 11, 1996










However, two fairly recent disputes have specifically
addressed artesian aquifer capture methods.
The South Dakota Supreme Court in Fraser v. Water
Rights, 294 NW 2d 784 (S.D. 1980), held that a prospective
well's interference with domestic wells must be considered
during the permitting process. The court specifically held
that in regard to artesian aquifers the court must
"consider" any adverse impacts the new user may have on a
domestic user whose capture method is artesian pressure
rather than a pump. However, an absolute preference for
domestic artesian aquifer rightholders does not exist
because the court merely must "consider" the impacts. This
ruling was limited by the Coca Cola Bottling Dispute that
occurred early in 1995.
The Coca Cola Bottling Dispute arose out the City of
Rapid City's challenge to a Coca Cola bottling plant's well
permit. Although never litigated, the South Dakota Water
Management Board determined that as between an industry and
a municipality, considerations of delivery methods were not
required. This dispute effectively created an exception to
the Fraser v. Water Rights case.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Diane Best
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Attorney General
500 East Capital
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
605-773-3215

Jim Goodman
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Rights
533 East Capital Avenue
Pierre, SD 57501
605-773-3352


January 11, 1996









SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Susquehanna River Basin Compact, Public Law 91-575,
84 Stat. 1509

Regulations:
18 C.F.R. 803, 804, 805 (1995)

Case Law: N/A

Related Information:
Susquehanna GUARDIAN, Volume 4, No. 1, Winter 1994/95
Brochure: Susquehanna River Basin Commission
1993 Annual Report, Susquehanna River Basin
Commission.

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: The Susquehanna
River Basin Commission (SRBC) does not regulate artesian
aquifer pressure. However, problems could be addressed if
such a case arose by including appropriate limitation in
groundwater permits.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: The SRBC regulates groundwater
use through its permitting process.

Regulation Organization: The SRBC is a federally created
commission that regulates ground and surface water in the
Susquehanna River Basin. This basin includes portions of
the states of New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

Regulations: All wells with a capacity of 100,000 gpd or
greater must be permitted. Limitations on groundwater use
are determined on a case-by-case basis and are incorporated
into the permit. However, if problems should arise
subsequent to granting a permit, the SRBC has "continual
oversight" authority and can amend or change the permit
restrictions.

Mitigation Techniques: The SRBC generally implements
withdrawal restrictions and pumping limits in order to
manage groundwater withdrawal.
In general, a well user that adversely affects another
user's water rights is responsible for fixing the problem.
This is usually accomplished by digging a deeper well or
supplying the injured user with another source of water. In
determining the appropriate mitigation form, SRBC will
consider whether the injured well is adequate under the
drilling conditions.


January 11, 1996










Regulation Problems: No groundwater management problems
were reported. Most users are cooperative and negotiate
remedies out of court. Additionally, no challenges to SRBC
decisions were reported.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: N/A

III. Agency, Contact Person

Richard Cairo
General Counsel
Susquehanna River Basin Commission
1721 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101-2391
717-238-0423


January 11, 1996










TENNESSEE

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes: N/A

Regulations: N/A

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: None

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: None

Regulation Organization: N/A

Regulations: Tennessee does not regulate groundwater
withdrawal. Existing statutes address well construction and
well head protection. Groundwater related rules are
designed to address pollution issues.

Mitigation Techniques: N/A

Regulation Problems: N/A

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: N/A

III. Agency, Contact Person

Robert Foster
Deputy Director
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
Division of Water Supply
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243-1549
615-532-0155 direct
615-532-0191 general office


January 11, 1996










TEXAS


I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Edwards Aquifer Creation Act, Texas S.B. No. 1477,
(1993).

Regulations: N/A

Case Law: N/A

Related Information:
RONALD A. KAISER, J.D., HAND BOOK OF TEXAS WATER LAW:
PROBLEMS AND NEEDS (Texas Water Resources Institute, EIS
86-236 I/87-2M).
Rick Illgner, The Edwards Aquifer: Political
Prisoner, paper presented at the 89th Annual Meeting,
Association of American Geographers, Atlanta, Georgia
(1993).
John M. Sweeten, MANAGING PRIVATE GROUNDWATER THROUGH
UNDERGROUND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL
EXTENSION SERVICE, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, (Texas
Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M University
System, B-1612).
Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts, Membership
Directory & District Activities, February 1995.

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: Few artesian
aquifers occur in Texas. In general, artesian aquifers are
only regulated in areas where subsidence, strip mining, and
irrigation occur.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Texas does not regulate
groundwater consumption although aquifer levels are
protected by groundwater management districts.
Additionally, the Texas rule of capture is the general
standard although Texas law does not guarantee base flow.

Regulation Organization: The state of Texas does not
regulate groundwater consumption. Instead, local
groundwater conservation districts are legislatively formed
requiring a confirmation election by district residents.
However, the 1949 Texas Groundwater Districts Act
authorized groundwater conservation districts. This
legislation provides for the creation of two types of
conservation districts: underground water conservation
districts and subsidence districts. Approximately 40
underground water conservation and subsidence districts
exist. This statute also gave conservation districts the
authority to conserve and preserve underground water
supplies. Some of the water conservation districts have


January 11, 1996










established successful conservation programs, all of which
vary depending on the nature of the problem and the
district's geologic characteristics.

Regulations: In general, groundwater conservation districts
have the power to regulate groundwater by restricting
production and well spacing. Currently groundwater
production limitations generally is not used as a regulation
mechanism although it is increasingly being adopted.
For instance, the Edwards Underground Water District
has the power to issue rules and permits for surface and
groundwater transportation, but not groundwater consumption.
Meanwhile the Barton Springs-Edwards Aquifer Conservation
District does limit consumption.

Mitigation Techniques: Mitigation techniques vary among
groundwater conservation districts depending on geologic
characteristics and groundwater problems.
For instance, the Harris-Galvaston Coastal Subsidence
District uses a variety of techniques to manage water
production. The over production of groundwater has caused
so much land subsidence that the district is prone to
flooding. Therefore, this district works in coordination
with USGS to identify "zones" in which surface and
groundwater regulation "mixes" are implemented to reduce
adverse aquifer impacts. In some instance the district even
attempts to gradually cease groundwater production.

Regulation Problems: N/A

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: None regarding
groundwater consumption.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Rick Illgner
Edwards Underground Water District
P.O. Box 15830
San Antonio, TX 78212-9030
210-222-2204

Allan J. Lange
President Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts
P.O. Box 67
Vancourt, TX 76957
915-469-3988


January 11, 1996










UTAH

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
a Utah Code Ann. 73-1, 2 (1994). (pertinent parts)

Regulations: Utah has no regulations regarding groundwater
use. Instead, the state engineer refers directly to the
statute. Existing regulations address hearing procedures
and well drilling.

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: Utah is not
regulating to protect artesian well pressure. However, Utah
State courts are split as to whether well pressure is
protected.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: The Utah State Engineer
regulates water use throughout the state managing some areas
by water basins. In fact, new wells are not permitted in
many areas in Utah.

Regulation Organization: Groundwater consumption is
regulated by the State's permitting scheme. All applicants
are subject to the State Engineer's approval. The
Engineer's decision can be appealed.

Regulations: Permits are reviewed on a case-by-case basis
according to a "reasonable drawdown standard." However,
"reasonable" has not been defined. All permit decisions can
be appealed.

Mitigation Techniques: Restrictions on new wells may
include citing, use, and drawdown restrictions. The
appropriateness of specific techniques vary with location as
further water-resource development is prohibited in some
areas.

Regulation Problems: No regulation problems were reported.
Issues that arise generally pertain to whether a permit can
be issued.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: None.


January 11, 1996










III. Agency, Contact Person

Jerry Olds
Utah Office of State Engineer
1636 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
801-538-7390


January 11, 1996









VERMONT

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
*Groundwater Cause of Action, 10 V.S.A. 1420 (1994).

Regulations:
eEnvironmental Protection Rules, Chapter 21, Water
Supply Rule (pertinent parts), September 24, 1992.

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No artesian
aquifers exist, however, a bill recommending artesian
aquifer monitoring was recently submitted to the state
legislature.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Vermont does not regulate
groundwater consumption. In general, decreasing aquifers
have not been a problem in Vermont. However, some
regulations do occur at the municipal level.

Regulation Organization: Existing regulation is conducted
on a state-wide basis as the state is too small
geographically and in population to defer regulation to
regional or municipal levels.

Regulations: None

Mitigation Techniques: None

Regulation Problems: None

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: None

III. Agency, Contact Person

David Butterfield
Agency of Natural Resources
Department of Environmental Conservation
Water Supply Division
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671-0403
807-241-3400


January 11, 1996










VIRGINIA

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Ground Water Management Act, VA. CODE ANN. S 62.1-254
through 62.1-270 (Michie 1992)

Regulations:
Va. Regs. Reg. 680-13-07 Ground Water Withdrawal
Regulations.

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: None.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: None.

Regulation Organization: Although Virginia has a
groundwater mitigation plan, it does not restrict
groundwater withdrawal. The only exception is in the
state's groundwater protection area located in the coastal
plain.

Regulations: Virginia regulations require water withdrawal
reporting of all wells that pump 10,000 gpd or greater.
Proposed wells located within the groundwater protection
area with a capacity of 10,000 gpd or greater require a
permit.

Mitigation Techniques: Within groundwater management areas
groundwater users must submit water conservation and
management plans as part of the permit application. Permits
are only issued for the amount of groundwater that will be
applied to the proposed beneficial use.

Regulation Problems: None.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: None

III. Agency, Contact Person

Terry Wagner
Department of Environmental Quality
Groundwater Quality Program
629 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
804-527-5203


January 11, 1996










WASHINGTON

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:
Groundwater Management Areas, WASH. REV. CODE S 90-44.4
(1995).
Limits on Granting permits, WASH. REV. CODE S 90-44.0
(1995).

Regulations:
Administration of Surface and Ground Water Codes,
W.A.C. 508-12 (__).

Case Law:
Rettkowski v. Dept. of Ecology, 122 Wash. 2d 219
(1993).

Related Information:
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, WATER RIGHTS IN WASHINGTON
(Washington State Department of Ecology, A-WR-92-105,
March 1992).
Judith Clark Turpin, Comprehensive Water Legislation
Proposed, RIVER, Spring 1995.
Ken Slattery, Washington Legislature Deadlocks on
Water Bills, RIVER, Summer 1995.

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: No.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Aquifer levels are protected by
the Water Resources Section of the Washington State
Department of Ecology.

Regulation Organization: Washington currently manages
ground and surface water on a state-wide basis. However,
the state is moving towards an ecosystem and watershed
management approach.

Regulations: All groundwater wells must be registered with
the state and wells pumping 5,000 gpd or greater must be
permitted. Wells pumping groundwater below the threshold
are exempt from the permitting requirement if the use is for
stockwatering, irrigation of a half acre or less, single or
group domestic purposes, or industrial purposes. To approve
or deny a well permit the state considers the beneficial
use, potential for impairment of existing rights,
groundwater availability for appropriation, and the
potential adverse effects to the public's interest.

Mitigation Techniques: All types of mitigation techniques
are used as required on a case-by-case basis.


January 11, 1996










Regulation Problems: None reported.


Judicial or Administrative Decisions: The Washington state
Supreme Court held in Rettkowski v. Dept. of Ecology, 122
Wash. 2d 219 (1993) that Department of Ecology's power is
limited to identifying competing claims. When this occurs
the Department is to deny permit applications. Resolution
of the claims is to be decided by the court.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Doug Rushton
Water Resources, Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
360-407-6642

Tom MacDonald
Ecology Division of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 40117
Olympia, WA 98504-0117
360-459-6320


January 11, 1996










WEST VIRGINIA

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes: N/A

Regulations: N/A

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: None.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: None.

Regulation Organization: West Virginia has a Groundwater
Protection Act that regulates groundwater quality but not
quantity.

Regulations: None.

Mitigation Techniques: N/A

Regulation Problems: N/A

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: N/A

III. Agency, Contact Person

David Watkins
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection
Office of Water Resources
1201 Greenbriar Street
Charleston, WV 25311-1088
304-558-2108


January 11, 1996










WISCONSIN

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes: N/A

Regulations: N/A

Case Law: N/A

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: None.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: None.

Regulation Organization: Existing regulation is state-wide.

Regulations: Wisconsin regulates only high capacity
groundwater users to the extent that their use affects
public water supply wells. Groundwater pumping permits are
granted for these purposes based on possible adverse effects
to the public water supply, well location in relation to
soil contamination or landfills, and construction standards.
Permits can only be denied if it is shown that the existing
water supply will be adversely impacted. All wells that
pump 70 gpm or greater must obtain a permit. Other impacts
would have to be handled in civil court.

Mitigation Techniques: N/A

Regulation Problems: The nature of the geology in the
region makes it difficult to predict with any accuracy
whether a well will impact others. For this reason, the
state has adopted a "wait and see" attitude towards well
impacts.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: None.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Bill Furbish AND Richard Roth
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
608-266-9260
608-267-7652

Phone for Richard Roth, 608-266-2438


January 11, 1996









WYOMING

I. General Legal Framework used to address impacts on existing
Water Users.

Statutes:

Regulations:
New rules and regulations are being published but
anticipated date of completions is unknown. Old, 1973
regulations are available.

Case Law:

Related Information: N/A

II. Legal Framework Summary

Artesian Aquifer Pressure-Relief Framework: None.

Decreasing Aquifer Levels: Permits are required prior to
drilling any groundwater well. High-yield wells are
generally the only wells for which pumping is curtailed.
Domestic and stock wells have a preferred-use designation
and are almost always permitted.

Regulation Organization: Groundwater is regulated on a
state-wide basis.

Regulations: New regulations are presently being drafted.
The date of availability is uncertain.

Mitigation Techniques: Mitigation techniques are
implemented based on the interrelationship between surface
and groundwater. Specific techniques are applied on a case-
by-case basis.

Regulation Problems: The only reported problem has been
getting attorney's to agree on the statutory interpretations
of certain statutory terms.

Judicial or Administrative Decisions: Groundwater-related
conflicts are generally settled in negotiation. However,
recent litigation addressed the adverse effects of
groundwater mining for irrigation purposes upon another
person's ditch.

III. Agency, Contact Person

Richard Stockdale AND Mike Penz
Ground Water Division
Wyoming State Engineer's Office
Herschler Building, 4th Floor East
Cheyenne, WY 82002
307-777-6160


January 11, 1996




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs