WSP01433 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

appropriations. A disadvantage of riparian right registration is that filing riparian claims may lead claimants to believe they have a secure water right and are therefore entitled to use streamflow. The riparian claims woutd not be adjudicated by the DWR, but would be inventoried and eval- uated regarding the types and quantities of use, the potential water quantities that might be established, and potential priority dates for the riparian rights if they were adjudicated. A determ- ination regarding whether the riparian claims should be adjudicated, and how those claims should be legally integrated into the appropri- ative system, could be deferred until after reg- istered claims had been inventoried and eval- uated. Future legislation would be required to give the DWR authority to adjudicate registered claims, if this were determined to be necessary or desirable. Defining riparian land. Sub-alternatives 2a and 2b deal with the land physically bordering a stream for which riparian claims can be register- ed and adjudicated. Implementing sub-alterna- tive 2a would limit riparian claim rE:~gistration to claims associated with legally riparian land, Le. land meeting the Wasserburger I (1966) tests of being riparian. Implementing sub-alternative 2b would authorize owners of land bordering a stream to register and have their water use claims adjudicated even though their lands did not meet the Wasserburger I tests of being legally riparian. Implementing sub-alternative 2b would create more potential riparian claimants. Purpose of use. Sub-alternatives 2c and 2d deal with the purposes of use for which a riparian claim could be registered. Sub-alternative 2c would allow riparian claims for any beneficial use to be filed, including fish, wildlife, recreation, water quality maintenance, groundwater re- charge, etc. Sub-alternative 2d would allow ripar- ian claims to be filed for the purposes enumer- ated in the water preferences provisions only: domestic, agricultural and manufacturing. If ri- parian claims are allowed for any beneficial purpose, those using or wishing to use water for purposes other than those enumerated in the preferences provisions (such as groundwater recharge, municipal, fish and wildlife mainten- ance, recreation, etc.) are very likely to file ripar- ian claims in hopes that they for the first time will be able to obtain an appropriation for their extra- preference use. Limiting riparian claims to pre- ferred uses only (sub-alternative 2d) would be unconstitutional if actual extra-preference ri- parian uses were precluded by a riparian regis- tration requirement, and could be unconstitu- tional if dormant extra-preference riparian uses were precluded. 4-4 ~~~-:-.. The purposes of water use for which riparian claim registration would be allowed is a signifi- cant policy issue. Registration of a riparian claim carries with it the implication that if claims are adjudicated, all claims will be adjudicated and appropriations issued on the same basis. Thus, if riparian claims for fish and wildlife, for example, are allowed and if registered riparian claims are subsequently adjudicated and appropriations issued, appropriations would be issued for ad- judicated riparian fish and wildlife claims on the same basis as for any other adjudicated riparian claim. Actual use requirement. Sub-alternatives 2e, 2f and 2g deal with whether dormant riparian claims (i.e., claims made for riparian water rights even though water is not being used pursuant to a riparian right) would be authorized. Sub-altern- ative 2e would authorize dormant riparian claims as well as active riparian claims (i.e., claims for riparian water rights for which water is actually being used) to be filed. If dormant riparian claims were later adjudicated and appropriations issued, the adjudicated dormant riparian claims for high volume uses (irrigation, etc.) could inter- fere with existing appropriations if the priority date was based on the date the riparian land was severed from the public domain (sub-alternative 3i). Sub-alternatives 2f and 2g require either (1) that water has been used within the last five years or (2) that water use facilities are under construction. Implementing either of these sub- alternatives would preclude the possibility that appropriations could be adjudicated and issued in the future for dormant riparian claims.