WSP01433 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

p " "'I~~ Ii')' c).) major Costs associated with maintaining the status quo would be the potential of private litigation costs associated with riparian-appro- priative law suits. as well as continued uncertain- ty regarding whether appropriative water rights will be restricted through litigation for the benefit of riparians. Changes in Water Use Patterns. Implementing this policy would not significant- ly affect existing water use patterns. There is no indication that the threat of riparian claims has inhibited surface waler users from making in- vestments in current and prospective appropri- ations. Physica II Hydro log iel E nvi fa n menta I I m pacts. Implementing this alternative would result in no changes in the physical/hydrologic/environ- mental impacts from those currently experi- enced. The current system of appropriating surfaCE:: water would continue with the potential for limited or no instream flows and the associ- ated environmental and hydrologic impacts. Socia-Economic Impacts. The dominant feature of current law is un- certainty. To the extent that existing appropri- ators can be enjoined at the insistence of a riparian landowner. the appropriation right is not secure. An appropriator can evaluate his position relative to other appropriators but he has no way of evaluating his position relative to riparians since no record of riparian uses or claims has been made. Consequently,appropriators may be discouraged from making economically sound capital investments by the possibility that their water right could be defeated by an unknown riparian. The problem may be particularly severe with respect to dormant riparian claims. Even if investment is not directly inhibited. however, the loss of income from having an appropriative water right interrupted by exercise 01 an undis- closed riparian right likely will not be perceived fair by most observers. Alternative #2: Legislatively require registration of riparian water right claims with the Nebraska De. partment of Water Resources, establishing that any other ri- parian water uses are not legally sanctioned, and making failure to register a forfeiture of any water right claim. Sub-alternative 2a: Authorize registration of riparian claims related to land which is legally riparian (i.e., the land borders a natural stream, was severed from the public domain before April4. 1895. and has not lost riparian status quo due to subdivision. Sub-alternative 2b: Authorize registration of riparian claims related to land which is physically riparian. Sub-alternative 2c: Authorize registration of riparian claims for any beneficial purpose. Sub-alternative 2d: Authorize registration ot riparian claims tor domestic, agricultural and manufacturing purposes only. Sub-alternative 2e: Authorize registration of riparian claims whether or not water has actually been used in the past. Sub-alternative 21: Authorize registration of riparian claims only where water use has been made within the last 5 years or where works are under construction. Sub-alternative 2g: Authorize registration of riparian claims only where water has been diverted and used within the last 5 years or where works are under construction. Sub-alternative 2h: Legislatively exempt in- dividual domestic and stockwatering uses up to the normal dryland grazing capacity of the land from riparian right registration requirements. Sub-alternative 2i: Legislatively give ripar- ians using water for individual domestic and stockwatering purposes up to the normal dryland grazing capacity 01 the land the option to register their riparian claims. Description. Implementation of Alternative #2 would require riparian claims to be registered with (but not adjudicated by) the Nebraska Department of Water Resources (DWR). Two advantages of the registration approach are: (1) unregistered riparian claims would be forfeited and (2) registered riparian claims could be evaluated to determine whether and how they should be integrated into the appropriative system. The forfeiture of unregistered claims would remove the legal possibility of dormant riparian claims being asserted to frustrate 4.3