WSP01433 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I.,' J~S Kansas border, mostly south of the Republican River, (4) the Nemaha River baslnnlocalized areas scattered throughout the basin, and (51 localized areas in other river basins where bed- rock lies near the surface.7 Irrigation-livestock watering disputes may be less frequent in these areas if rural water systems provide more reliable supplies for stock- watering purposes. Irrigation-livestock watering disputes on Hat Creek have led to two major Nebraska Supreme Court decisions: MengB (1903) and Wasserburger ,9 (1966). Future litigation may be less likely if rural water systems 3re developed. This has occurred In Hat Creek: a rural water system had been developed sub- sequent to Wasserburger '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 for the court's Subsequent ruling that the ifflgator could not store streamflow without regard to the ri- parian's stockwatering needs.lo Judicial Resolution of Stockwatering Disputes_ Potential Riparian-appropriative conflicts involving live- stock watering are likely to be judicially resolved on the basis 01 (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 legal theory of an "actual use" priority. McCook (0305) suggested that as a practical matter a flparian's priority date is the date the riparian use was initiated. Wasserburger I (1966) and Brummond (1969) contain 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 livetock watering purposes. If this legal theory were water for livestock watering purposes, If this legal theory 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 ripanan or not) becaUSE> livestock watering would predate irrigation or other appropriations in most circumstances. (2) Domestic preference. Brummond (19691 may be read as giving domestic users an ab- solute preference in that compensation is not required if a preferred user interferes 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, 96) 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 01 the stockman only if the stockman acquires the right to interfere with the appropflation through condemnation. If compensation were required. the legal value of a stockwatering claim would be significantfy reduced. (3) Balancing the equities. Wasserburger J (1966) establishes a balancing test for resolving riparian-appropriative confficts 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 watering 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 waler were avail- able for livestock watering purposes, however, the courts are likely to require the riparian to deveJoptivestock 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 ripaflan-appro- priative litigation include fish, wildlife and re- 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 Lillie 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 for fish, wildlife 2-3