WSP01433 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" ,', '):; '-IV' I"., of authorized water use, the Quantity and method of water use. and the priority date for the riparian claim. Once this was accomplished. the Legis- lature could then consider whether the riparian claims should be integrated into the appropri. ative system. Alternatively, riparian claims could be integrated into the appropriative system as part of the riparian claim adjudication process. When Nebraska's prior appropriation system was first established. administrative adjudication of appropriations lasted five years, from 1895 to 1900. Adjudicating riparian rights could lake as long or longer, depending on what purposes of use Qualify for adjudication, and on how priority dates are determined. The more riparian uses that are recognized. and the earlier that riparian priority dates can be assigned. the greater the number of riparian claims that would be filed and the greater likelihood of conflicts with existing and future appropriators. This would lead to more el(isting appropriators participating in riparian rights adjudication proceedings to protect the legal status of their appropriations. which would lengthen those proceedings. In addition. II extra- preference riparian claims are allowed and it priority dates could be assigned which would displace existing appropriators. the value 01 existing and future appropriations would be unclear, pending the outcome of the riparian rights adjudication proceedings. Finally. adjudi- cating riparian claims could lead to adjudicating federal and Indian reserved water rights claims. The implications of adjudicating federal and Indian reserved water right claims are evaluated in the slate water planning report Water Right Adjudications. Defining riparian land. Implementing sub- alternative 3a (defining riparian land to include only the land meeting the Wasserburger 1(1966) tests of being legally riparian land)would result in fewer riparian claimdnts. and would restrict the benefits of riparian right adjudication to those landowners whose land happens to be legally riparian (which arguably is only a historical acci- dent). Implementing sub-alternative 3b (defining riparian land as all land bordering a stream) would lead to more riparian claims being filed, and would also provide a uniform opportunity for landowners bordering a stream to obtain the benefits of riparian right adjudication. Allowing adjudication of riparian rights for land not meeting the Wasserburger I tests arguably may somehow interfere with the rights of existing appropriators. This approach may be permiss- ible, however, if the Legislature establishes that the reason for the adjudication is to bring uses popularly perceived as being outside the appro- priative system (stockwatering. fish and wildlife. etc.) into the appropriation system for the first time. Purpose of use. The difference between sub- alternatives 3c (claims lor any beneficial use could be adjudicated) and 3d (claims for domestic. agricultural and industrial purposes only could be adjudicated) have been discussed already relative to Alternative #2 under the heading purpose of use. Implementing sub- alternative 3c further implies. however, that ap- propriations could be obtained for purposes other than those enumerated in the surface water preferences provisions through the ripar- ian right adjudication process. Implementing sub-alternative 3d would require all domestic. agricultural and manufacturing riparian claims to be registered and adjudicated by the DWR. Claims for these preferred purposes would be authorized, although clarification regarding what constituted a domestic use would be helpful. For example, induced recharge of a municipal well located near a stream could constitute a do- mestic use (or a combined domestic and in- dustrial use). Watering of domestic and farm livestock up to the normal dryland grazing ca- pacity of the land in a normal farm or ranch operation could also constitute a domestic use. , l- el:!; t..: ..., ~~l J ''''''.....r r-- - .. ~ . Actual use requirement. The difference between sub-alternatives 3e (dormant riparian claims could be registered and adjudicated) and 31 and 3g (only active riparian claims could be registered and adjudicated) have been discuss- ed relative to Alternative #2 under the heading actual use requirement. Implementing sub- alternative 3e further implies. however, that ap- propriations would be issued for dormant ri- parian claims through the riparian right registra- 4.7