WSP00374

• File Number: 8407.400
• Description: Platte River Basin - River Basin General Publications - Nebraska
• State: NE
• Basin: South Platte
• Water Division: 1
• Date: 3/1/1983
• Author: Nebraska Natural Res
• Title: Policy Issue Study on Selected Water Rights Issues - Riparian Rights
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

1"1' ,J....
.. ,. .11

public domain. or (2) the dale beneficial use of
water was (or will be) initiated by thl? riparian. This
issue is of major importance as it defines how
conflicts between former riparians and existing
appropriators will be resolved.
In California, riparian-appropriative conflicts
are resolved on the basis 01 priority. The appro-
priator's priority depends on the dale 01 benefi-
cial use, whereas the riparian's priority is the date
the land was severed from the public domarn.
even if beneficial use was not initiated until much
later. Thus, a riparian could have initiated the
beneficial use of water after an appropriator but
have an earlier priority dale jf the riparian land
was severed prior to the appropriator's initiation
of beneficial use. Legislation integrating riparian
rights into the appropriative system in other
western states. however, does not spell out how a
riparian's priority date should be determined.

Presumably the priority date would have been
aSSigned for riparian claims on the same basis as
for other waler claims, which in most cases would
be the date of initial beneficial use.

SUMMARY

The experience of other western dual doctrine
states provides little guidance in legislatively
integrating riparian rights into the appropriative
system in Nebraska. primarily because most dual
doctrine states completely integrated riparian
rights into the appropriative system when they
initially enacted appropriation legislation.
Exempting riparian stockwatering claims from
water right adjudication procedures, however, is
a feature of riparian rights integration in other
dual doctrine states which Nebraska policy
makers may wish to consider.

FOOTNOTES

2

But see I Hutchins. Water Rights laws in
the Nineteen Western States- (U.S. Dep't
01 Agric. MISC. Pub. No. 1206, 1971) at 192
(Courts In some pure appropriation states
have ruled or suggested that a riparian
landowner may use surface water so long as
appropriators are not interfered with); 192-
93 (courts have used riparian doctrine as
source 01 law in defining the rights of
riparian proprietors not addressed byappro-
priation).
EidemiJler fee Co. v. Guthrie, 42 Neb. 238. 60
N.W. 717 (1894) (court ruled that riparian
had right to harvest ice).
Lux v. Hagen, 69 Cal. 391. lOP. 674 (1886);
Smith v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. 197 Okla.
499,172 P.2d 100211946).
2 Hutchins at 106-20.
2 Hutchins at 120nn625.29.
Los Angeles v. Aitken, lOCal. App. 2d 460,
52 P.2d 585 (1935), hearing den. 3e Cal.
App. 2d 116.97 P.2d 274 (19391; Lakeside
In. Co. v. Kirby, 166 S.W. 715 (Tex. Civ. App.
1914); In re Martha lake Water Co.. 152
Wash. 53, 277 P. 382 (19291; Petition of
Clinton Water Dis!.. 36 Wash. 2d 284. 218
P. 309 (1950).
Elsinore v. Temeseal Water Co., 36 Cal. App.
2d 116.97 P. 274 (1939): Prather v. Hoberg.
24 Cal.2d 549. 150 P.2d 405 (1944); Martm
v. British Am. Oil Co.. 187 Okla. 193. 102 P.2d
124 (1940); Sayles v. Mitchell. 60 S.D. 592.
245 N.,W. 390 (1932); Great Am. De..- Co. v.
Smith. 303 S.W.2d 861 tTex. Ciy. App. 19571

3

4
5
6.

7

B.

Snively v. Jaber. 48 Wash, 2d 815, 296 P.2d
1015 (1956); Bach v. Sarich, 74 Wash. 2d
575,445 P.2d 648(1968).
Diversion Lake Club v. Health. 127 Tex. 129,
86 S.W.2d 441 (1935): Curry v. Hill, 460 P.2d
933 (Okla. 1969); Snively v. Jaber, 48 Wash.
2d 815, 296 P.2d 1015(19561.
See generally I Hutchins at 210-25.
Wasserburger v. Coffee. 180 Neb. 149, 141
NW2d 738 119661.
Kan. Stat. Anno. 982a-704a (Supp. 1979);
Okla. Slat. Ann. tit. 82. 9 loA: Oreg. Rev. Stat.
9539.010; Vernon's Texas Code Ann., Water
Code 95.303; Rev. Code Wash. Ann.
990.'40'01090,14.121.
State ex ref. Emery v. Knapp. 167 Kan. 546.
207 P.2d 440 (1949); In re Willow Creek, 74
Oreg. 592. 144 P. 505 (1914); In re Hood
River. 114 Oreg. 112, 227 P. 1065 (1924);
California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver
Portland Cement Co.. 73 Fed. 2d 555 (9th
Cir., 1934).
See generally, Anderson. Riparian Rights
in California (Governor's Comm'n to
Review Gal. Water Rights Law Staff Paper
NO.4. Nov. 197n
Kan. Stat. Anno. 982a-709 (1977); Okla.
Stal. Ann. tit. 60. 960; Oreg. Rev. Stat.
9539.010; Vernon's Texas Code Ann.. Water
Code 95303.
See Hutchins, The Common-law Riparian
Doctrine in Oregon: legislative and Ju-
dicial Modification, 36 Oreg. L. Rev. 193.
218,29119571,

9
10

11

"

13

14

15

3.3