WSP01433 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

aspect of owning land meeting the two require- ments described above. The amount of land in Nebraska which qualifies as legally riparian land is unknown. Much of the land in eastern and central Nebraska probably was settled by 1895. Whether this is true for the sandhills region and western Nebraska is un- clear. If much physically riparian land is not legally riparian, however, one issue to consider in evaluating riparian right policy alternatives is how phYSically riparian land should be treated. For example, if a policy alternative deals with livestock watering disputes, it may be applicable to such disputes generally whether or not legally riparian land is involved, as in Brummond4 (1969). Similarly, alternatives dealing with extra- preference uses may be relevant to any surface water conflict involving these uses even if legally riparian land is not involved. Addressing the riparian rights issue may require addressing the related policy issues of how conflicts involving livestock watering and extra-preference uses should be addressed. Potential Riparian-Appropriative Con- flicts. The potential for riparian-appropriative con- flicts is the basis for recommendations that riparian rights be integrated into the appropri- ative system.5 If riparian rights had been judicially defined such that they did not threaten appropriations, as was thought to be the case prior to Wasserburger I (1966), the need to in- tegrate riparian and appropriative rights probably would not have been perceived. Future riparian-appropriative conflicts are most likely to arise in two situations: irrigation- stockwatering conflicts and conflicts involving extra-preference uses. These two conflict situ- ations represent the two major water use categories popularly perceived as falling outside the appropriation system. Appropriations have not been acquired for livestock watering be- cause of the popular perceptions (1) that the 1895 appropriation act applied only to high- volume diversions of water and (2) that the domestic preference protected livestock water- ing rights. Appropriations for extra-preference uses have not been acquired because of popular and official perceptions that such uses were outside the appropriation system. High-volume riparian uses. A third potential conflict involving riparian rights should be dis- pensed with. High-volume riparian uses could be initiated that could interefere with existing ap- propriations. However, it is unlikely that any significant high-volume riparian uses are 2-2 currently being made. The Nebraska Department of Water Resources (DWR) administers appro- priations on virtually all streams in Nebraska during these periods of water shortage. Any high- volume riparian use should have been identified by the DWR during these periods of water right administration. If new high-volume riparian uses were initiated in the future which interfered with an appropriation, however, the appropriator would be entitled to enjoin by court order the riparian use under the authority of McCook6 (1905). Thus, these kinds of potential riparian water uses merit little further consideration at least on those streams administered in the past. Livestock Watering Riparian Con- fl iets. Likelihood of litigation. Basically, litigation is a last resort in conflict resolution. Riparian stockwatering litigation is likely to occur (1) only when water supplies are inadequate to meet all needs and the parties are unable to find a com- promise, or (2) when one party dislikes the other and uses water as a pretext for spite litigation. Litigation will not occur when surface water supplies are adequate because there is no con- flict. When surface water supplies are inade- quate but groundwater is readily available litiga- tion is likely to occur (1) if the party forced to develop groundwater believes it has a legal basis for recovering part of the costs incurred (e.g. if the insurance companies litigate the liability issue) or (2) for spite. If surface and groundwater supplies are both inadequate[as was the case in Wasserburger I (1966)] litigation may occur if the parties cannot find a compromise because there is a genuine conflict. Because groundwater supplies generally are available throughout most of Nebraska at a reasonable cost, riparian stock- watering litigation has been less frequent than if water supplies were more limited. Riparian stockwatering litigation is most likely to occur where the water conflict is genuine (and the risks of litigation therefore are worth taking) or where spite is involved. For purposes of this discussion, livestock watering includes the watering of domestic live- stock and livestock on pasture (up to the normal dryland capacity of the land) but excludes the watering of livestock in a feedlot. Stockwatering conflicts are unlikely to arise frequently because groundwater is the major source of livestock water in Nebraska. However, groundwater is in- adequate for livestock watering in several parts of Nebraska, including: (1) the White River-Hat Creek basin--northern part of Dawes, Sioux, and Sheridan counties, (2) the Niobrara River basin-- parts of Boyd and Knox counties, (3) the Repub- lican River basin--scattered areas along the