WSP01433 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to administer non-domestic appropriations for the benefit of domestic surface water users. The two sub-alternatives for Alternative :#=4 deal with whether non-domestic appropriations should be administered for the benefit of stock- men even if alternative stockwatering supplies are available. INFORMATION PRESENTED FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE More detailed discussion of the alternatives begins below. For each alternative, information is presented under the following headings: Description; Methods of Implementation; Changes in Water Use Patterns; Physical/Hy- drologic/Environmentallmpacts; and Socio- economic Impacts. The information presented under the headings Description and Methods of Implementation describe the alternative, how it could be implemented, and discuss direct implementation costs. How water uses would change if an alternative were implemented is discussed under Changes in Water Use Patterns. Brief discussions of physical, hydro- logic and environmental impacts of implement- ing an alternative are included under Physical/ Hydrologic/Environmental Impacts. The economic efficiency and equity effects of im- plementing each policy alternative are discussed under Socio-economic Impacts. Alternative #1: Take no legislative action. Descri ption. Implementing this alternative would preserve the status quo. Existing appropriators would be subject to the possibility that courts would issue injunctions to protect riparian domestic and live- stock watering uses. Appropriators would also be subject to the somewhat smaller possibility that courts would issue injunctions to protect other riparian uses; e.g., riparian uses not in- volving a direct physical diversion of water groundwater recharge, fish, wildlife, and recre- ation, etc.) or riparian uses for purposes not included in the surface water preferences pro- visions (municipal, fish, wildlife, recreation). One implication of implementing this altern- ative is that conflicts involving irrigators and ranchers watering their livestock would not be resolved on the inflexible basis of priority or preference. Instead, these disputes would be resolved under the guidelines established in Wasserburger v. Coffee 1, which would involve a more complete consideration of the facts of each 4-2 .,'~..:;,~. .: .. ;,r:~~._~.~ case, including the availability of alternative sources of livestock water. While this makes conflict resolution more expensive to the parties involved, it does allow a considerable amount of flexibility in making water allocation decisions with a minimum cost of administration. A second implication of maintaining the status quo is that integrating riparian and appropriative rights can be deferred until water uses that have been popularly perceived as being outside the appropriative system have otherwise been brought into the appropriative system. Two kinds of surface water use have been popularly per- ceived as being outside the appropriative system: (1) uses not involving a physical diver- sion of water (such as groundwater recharge2, stockwatering fish and wildlife maintenance, recreation, water quality maintenance, etc.) and (2) uses not enumerated in the surface water preferences provisions (such as municipal [although one could argue that some municipal uses were domestic or a combination of do- mestic and industrial uses], commercial [al- though one could argue that some commercial uses were domestic], fish and wildlife mainten- ance, recreation, water quality maintenance, etc.). If the status quo is maintained, these water users have the option of attempting to have their water uses recognized by asserting riparian claims. Methods of Implementation. Alternative :#= 1 could be implemented byenact- ing no legislation dealing with riparian rights. The