WSP01433 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I' \, ")1 I" I ~J .t Physical diversion requirement. Sub-alter- natives 2f and 2g deal with whether a diversion of streamflow would be necessary for a riparian claim to be registered. Sub-alternative 2f would not require a diversion of water whereas sub- alternative 2g would. Implementing sub-alterna- tive 2f would allow instream water uses while implementing sub-alternative 2g would preclude most. if not all, instream water uses. It riparian claims are allowed for uses not involving a direct physical diversion of water, those using or wish- ing to use water such that a direct physical diversion of water is nol involved are very likely to file riparian claims in hopes that they. for the first time, will be able to obtain an appropriation for their "non-diverting" use. Stockwatering, Sub-alternatives 2h and 2i deal with riparian livestock watering. SUb-altern- ative 2h would exempt stockmen from riparian right registration requirements, while sub-altern- ative 2i would give stockmen the option to register any riparian claims. Stockwatering in a feedlot would not qualify for this exemption. Implementing either of these sub-alternatives would probably greatly reduce the number of riparian claims filed. Exempting individual domestic and livestock watering uses from any riparian rights registra- tion requirements would follow the policy of many western states 01 recognizing and protect. ing domestic uses without requiring the strict appropriative procedural formalities. This allows administrators to deal primarily with the high- volume uses of other appropriators and to avoid the immense bookkeeping and related adminis- trative tasks that would be required if domestic water users were required to follow the usual appropriative procedurallormalities. Methods of Implementation. Implementing this alternative would require enacting legislation: (1) requiring all flparian water right claims to be registered with the DWR within a stated period. (2) establishing that any other riparian water uses are not legally sanctioned. and (3) establishing that lailure to register a claim would constitute a forfeiture of any riparian right. The legislation should also: (1) specify what land would Qualify as riparian. (2) specify the purposes of water use for which riparian claims could be registered. (3) specify whether dormant riparian claims could be regis- tered, (4) specify whether uses not involving a direct physical diversion of streamflow could be registered. and (5) specify how livestock water- ing claims would be treated. The DWR would be required to notify potential claimants of the registration requirement. While some commentators have suggested thai this could require actual notice to each owner of a legally riparian parcel, the water right adjudica- tion procedures of other western states have required only general public notice (through newspaper, TV and radio announcements). If actual notice were required to each riparian proprietor, the costs of such notice would be an estimated 570,000 to $1 00,000 If, for example. a notice were Included in each county lax assess- ment statement. An advantage 01 actual notice is that it avoids any constitutional Question regard- . ing whether adequate notice of the riparian right registration requirement was given. II only a general public notice were required. however, the notice costs would be substantially less. A disadvantage of this approach, however. is that such notice might not be adequate to warn landowners that failure to register a riparian claim would lead to forfeiture. Other administrative costs are difficult to estimate. but could be substantial. depending on the number of claims filed. The primary costs would be the costs of processing and filing the riparian right claims. Changes in Water Use Patterns. The only possible change in water use patterns related to registering riparian claims would be if f1parians began using water for the first time in the belief that such use was necessary to prevent riparian water rights from being forfeited. or that the registration of a riparian claim entitled one to use streamflow. Physical/Hydrologic/Environmental 1m pacts. Because this alternative would require regis- tration only. implementing this alternative would create no significant change in the physical/hy- drologic/environmental impacts from the current system. If however, riparians began using water fOr the lirst time in the belief that such use was necessary to prevent riparian water rights from being forfeited. or that the registration of a riparian claim entitled one to therefore use streamflow, surface water withdrawals might Increase. This could result in reduced instream flows with the associated environmental and hydrologic impacts. Socio-Economic Impacts. Registration of riparian rights would promote economic efficiency by putting all present and potential water users on notice of riparian claims. Registration would facilitate consideration of the magnitude of the riparian "problem". To maxi- 4.5