WSP00374 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, 'J. ')8 IJlJu . Kansas border. mostly south at the Republican River, (4) the Nemaha River basin--Iocalized areas scallered throughout the basin, and (5) localized areas In other river basins where bed- rock lies near the surtace.7 Irrigation-livestock watering disputes may be less frequent in these areas if rural water systems provide more reliable supplies lor stock- watering purposes. Irrigation-livestock watering disputes on Hal Creek have led to two major Nebraska Supreme Court decisions: Meng8 (1903) and Wasser burger /9 (1966). Future litigation may be less likely If rural waler systems 3re developed, This has occurred in Hal Creek: a rural water system had been developed sub- sequent 10 Wasserburger J which made livestock water available to the riparian. The riparian, how. ever, has persuaded the Nebraska Supreme Court that the rural water system was not a reliable source of livestock water. particularly during the winter. ThIs was the basis lor the court's subsequent ruling that the Irrigator could not store streamflow without regard 10 the rl' parian's stockwatering needs.10 Judicial Resolution of Stockwatering Disputes. Potential Riparian-appropriative conflicts Involvmg live. stock watering are likely to be judicially resolved on the basis of (1) an "actual use" priority. (2) the domestic preference, or (3) balancing the equities. (1) Priority. Where the appropriator is a "public" appropriator (and perhaps where the appropriator is a private appropriator), riparians may prevail in appropriative stockwatering dis- putes based on a legallheory of an "actual use" priority. McCook (' 305) suggested that as a practical matter a rlparian's priority date IS the date the riparian use was initiated. Wasserburger f (1966) and Brummond (1969) contam similar suggestions. In Brummond the stockman was a "senior appropriator" because he had acquired an "appropriation" prior in time to the irrigator's appropriation, The stockman's "appropriation" was acquired not by conforming to the Nebraska water appropriation statutes, however, but by actually using the water for Iivetock watering purposes. If this legal theory were water for livestock watering purposes. If this legallheory were followed in subsequent decisions. a stock' man would be entitled to water even if his land were not legally riparian if he could prove that he had acquired an appropriation "by use" which gave him a senior priority. Stockmen would probably fare well under this approach (whether their land was legally riparian or not) becausE' livestock watering would predate Irrigation or other appropriations in most circumstances. (2) Domestic preference. Brummond (1969) may be read as giving domestic users an ab- solute preference in that compensation is not reqUired if a preferred user interleres with the rights of senior appropriators. The Court in Brummond did not. however. reach the issue of whether the domestic user would be reqUired to pay compensation for exercising a domestic preference (as required by Nebraska constitu- tion art, XV, 961 because the Court ruled the stockman had not proven that the proposed appropriation would necessarily interfere with his livestock watering. If stockwatering-appro- priation disputes were resolved on the basis of preference, the appropriator could argue that his appropriation can be restricted for the benefit of the stockman only if the stockman acquires the right to interfere with the appropriation through condemnation. If compensation were required. the legal value of a stockwatering claim would be significantly reduced. (3) Balancing the equities. Wasserburger I (1966) establishes a balancing test for resolving riparian'appropriative conflicts involving individ. ual riparians and appropriators. Wasserburger I adds two additional Criteria to the McCook actual use priority criterion' (1) the social utility of the respective uses and (2) water supply availability. In livestock wateflng disputes the stockman is likely to prevail over the appropriator as in Wasserburger I If a real shortage of livestock water exists. If ample ground water were avail. able for livestock watering purposes, however. the courts are likely to require the riparian to developlivestock wells rather than to enjoin an appropriator's surface water use. Disputes Involving Extra.Preference Uses. Likelihood of litigation. Extra-preference uses most likely to be involved in fiparian'appro- priative litigation include fish. wildlife and reo creation. and induced ground water recharge. Litigation Involving fish and wildlife water uses has occurred relative to the Grayrocks reservoir on the North Platte River in Wyoming 11, the Norden reservoir on the Niobrara River in Nebraska12, and the proposed Catherland reclamation project in the Little Blue River basin.13 although the riparian rights issue was not raised in any of these cases. While the legal status of riparians to claim water lor fish, wildlife 2.3