WSP01433 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ ~..:~'.- ( I~ .. and recreational purposes has not yet been defined, there is some possibility that they could be, especially in the Niobrara and Platte River basins (which contain important fish, wildlife, and recreational resources).14 Riparian-appropri- ative litigation in these river basins is likely to occur if additional surface water projects are developed, particularly because groundwater cannot easily be used as a supplemental source of supply for fish, wildlife and recreation water uses. Potential riparian-appropriative conflicts stemming from surface water development inter- fering with municipal induced groundwater re- charge is also possible, although such litigation has not occurred in the past. Platte valley munici- palities are involved in the Little Blue NRD trans- basin diversion litigation, however, because of perceived adverse impacts of streamflow diver- sions on downstream municipal wellfields.15 Such litigation may be less likely to occur than litigation involving fish, wildlife and recreation however, because municipal water supplies typi~ cally can be maintained by expanding the muni- cipal wellfield. Judicial Resolution of Conflicts I nvol- ving Extra-Preference Water Uses. Riparian-appropriative conflicts involving extra-preference uses are likely to be resolved either by priority or by balancing the equities. (1) Priority. As discussed above, McCook (1905) suggests that riparian-appropriative con- 2.4 flicts will be resolved on the basis of priority, with the riparian's effective priority date being the date of initial use. If conflicts involving extra- preference riparians occur, the riparian use could be senior to some appropriations and junior to others. Early priority dates could be claimed for fish and wildlife use, however, as such use often predated settlement. (2) Balancing the equities. As discussed above, Wasserburger I (1966) establishes a balancing test for resolving riparian-appropri- ative conflicts involving individual riparians and appropriators. Wasserburger I adds two addition- al criteria to the McCook actual use priority criCerion: (1) the social utility of the respective uses and (2) water supply availability. How the social utility criterion will be evaluated by the Nebraska Supreme Court relative to extra'pre- ference uses is difficult to predict. The con. stitutional declaration that irrigation water use is a natural want may give irrigation a favored status.16 Fish, wildlife and recreation may be favored if the court determines the state has a public trust obligation to protect such uses.17 Induced groundwater recharge for municipal purposes may benefit from the domestic water preference to the extent of domestic water use. How the water supply availability criterion will be evaluated is also difficult to predict. To the extent that extra-preference uses are low- volume uses with no practical alternative water supply (such as fish and wildlife) they may be protected as in Wasserburger I (1966). Where dependable alternative sources of supply are available (e.g. for induced groundwater re- charge), however, extra-preference water users may enjoy no particular legal advantage relative to appropriators. Summary The practical effects of the existence of riparian rights in Nebraska has been limited in the past to the livestock-irrigation conflicts on Hat Creek. The probability of such litigation in the future seems limited. If it does occur, such litiga- tion is likely to have only a limited local impact. Litigation involving extra-preference water uses is probable, however. The presence of riparian rights may not be a significant factor in such litigation because such litigation has already occurred without invoking riparian rights. The greatest practical significance of riparian rights is that they are a pOSSible legal basis for assert- ing rights for water uses popularly perceived as being outside the appropriative system: livestock watering and extra-preference water uses. The needs and problems associated with ripar-