WSP00374 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"II" "4 II. OJ .lo, Physical diversion requirement. Sub.alter- natives 21 and 2g deal with whether a diversion of streamflow would be necessary fOT a riparian claim 10 be registered. Sub-alternative 21 would not require a diversion of water whereas sub- alternative 2g would. Implementing sub-alterna- tive 2f would allow Instream water uses while implementing sub-alternative 2g would preclude most, if not all. instream water uses. If riparian claims are allowed tor uses not involving a direct physical diversion of water, those using or wish- ing to use water such that a direct physical diversion of water is nol involved are very likely to file riparian claims in hopes that they, for the first time, will be able 10 obtain an appropriation for their "non-diverting" use. Stockwatering. Sub-alternatives 2h and 2i deal with riparian livestock waterlng. Sub.altern. ative 2h would exempt stockmen from ripanan right registration reqUirements. while sub.altern- ative 2i would give stockmen the option to register any riparian claims. Stockwatering in a feedlot would not qualify for this exemption. Implementing either of these sub.alternatives would probably greatly reduce the number 01 riparian claims filed. Exempting individual domestic and livestock watering uses from any riparian rights registra- tion requirements would follow the poliCY of many western states of recognizing and protect. ing domestic uses without requiring Ihe strict appropriative procedural formalities. This allows administrators to deal primarily wilh the high- volume uses of other appropriators and to avoid the immense bookkeeping and related adminis. trative tasks that would be required if domestic water users were required 10 follow the usual appropriative procedurallormatities. Methods of Implementation. Implementing this alternative would require enacting legislation: (1) requiring all riparian water right claims to be registered with the DWR within a stated period, (2) establishing that any other riparian water uses are not legally sanctioned. and (3) establishing that failure to register a claim would constitute a lorteiture of any riparian right. The legislation should also: (1) specify what land would qualify as riparian. (2) specify the purposes 01 water use for which riparian claims could be registered. (3) specify whether dormant riparian claims could be regis- tered. (4) specify whether uses not involving a direct physical diversion of streamflow could be registered. and (5) specify how livestock water- ing claims would be treated. The DWR would be required to notify potential claimants of the registration requirement. While some commentators have suggested that this could require actual notice to each owner of a legally nparian parcel. the water right adjUdica- tion procedures of other western states have required only general publiC notice (through newspaper. TV and radio announcements). If actual notice were required to each riparian proprietor, the costs of such notice would be an estImated $70.000 to $1 00.000 if, for example. a notice were included in each county tax assess. ment statement. An advantage 01 actual notice is that II aVOids any constitutional Question regard- ing whether adequate notice of the riparian right registration requirement was given. 11 only a general public notice were required. however. the notice costs would be substantially less. A disadvantage of this approach, however. is that such notIce might not be adequate to warn landowners that failure 10 register a riparian claim would lead to forfeiture. Other administrative costs are difficult to estimate. but could be substantial. depending On the number of claims filed. The primary costs would be the costs of processing and filing the riparian right claims. Changes in Water Use Patterns. The only possible change in water use patterns related to registering riparian claims would be if riparians began using water lor the first lime in the belief that such use was necessary to prevent riparian water rights from being forteited. or that the registration of a riparian claim entitled one to use streamflow. Physical/Hydrologic/Environmental 1m pacts. Because this alternative would require regis' tration only, implementing this alternative would create no significant change in the physical/hy- drologic/environmental impacts from the current system. If however. riparians began using water for the first time in the belief that such use was necessary to prevent riparian water rights from being forfeited. or that the registration of a ripanan claim entitled one to therefore use streamflow, surface water withdrawals might increase. This could result in reduced instream flows with the associated environmental and hydrologic impacts. Socio.Economic Impacts. Registration of riparian rights would promote economic efficiency by putting all present and potential water users on notice of riparian claims. Registration would facilitate consideration of the magnitude of the riparian "problem". To maxi. 4.5