WSP01433 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tion and adjudication process. If this occurred, these appropriations would be subject to appro- priation cancellation provisions (Le., the "riparian appropriations" would be subject to loss due to more than three consecutive years nonuse, whereas at common law a riparian right is not lost due to nonuse). Physical diversion requirement. The signifi- cance of sub-alternatives 3f (a physical diversion of water is not required to constitute an active riparian water use) and 3g (a physical diversion of water is required to constitute an active riparian water use) have been described relative to Alternative #2 under the heading physical diversion requirement. Implementing sub-al- ternative 3f further suggests, however, that appropriations could be acquired for water uses not involving a direct diversion of water through the riparian right adjudication process. Legislative clarification of what constitutes a diversion would no doubt be helpful to the DWR in adjudicating riparian claims. The conventional definition of what constitutes a diversion of water could be expanded to include, for example in- duced recharge of a well located near a stream, or livestock and wildlife watering in the stream. Priority date. Sub-alternatives 3h and 3i deal with how the priority date for adjudicated riparian claims would be assigned. This may be the single most important issue regarding adjudication of riparian claims. Sub-alternative 3h would estab- lish the priority date for the adjudicated riparian claim as the earlier of the date water was initially used (if the claim were for an active riparian right), or the date the riparian claim was filed with the DWR (if the claim were for a dormant riparian right). Sub-alternative 3i would establish the priority date as the date the riparian land was severed from the public domain, whether or not water had ever been actually used. The earlier the priority date is, the more valuable the adjudi- cated riparian claim becomes. The later the priority date is, the less valuable the adjudicated riparian claim becomes. As noted above, the greater the possibility that riparian claimants could obtain early priority dates, the more con- troversial riparian right adjudication would be. One issue associated with implementing sub- alternative 3i (priority date is the date of sever- ance) relates to riparian claims for high-volume uses (principally irrigation). Because many streams in Nebraska are subject to DWR admin- istration of priorities during the irrigation season, anyone attempting to irrigate (or make other high-volume surface water uses) from these streams without an appropriation would very likely have been identified and ordered by the DWR to stop withdrawals during periods of water shortages. The absence of such high-volume 4-8 riparian water use conflicts strongly suggests that there are few if any active high-volume riparian water users without an appropriation. If a substantial number of high-volume claims were filed, however, (because dormant riparian claims were allowed pursuant to sub-alternative 3e) holders of adjudicated riparian rights could displace existing senior appropriators on the stream if priority dates were assigned on the basis of severance of riparian land from the public domain. For example, junior appropriators could use riparian right adjudication as a means of improving their priority if they could obtain a priority date based on the date of severance (sub- alternative 3i). If, however, the priority date of an adjudicated riparian right were the earlier of the date water was first applied to beneficial use or the date the riparian claim was filed with the DWR (sub-alternative 3h), the effect of adjudicating a riparian claim would be almost the same as obtaining a new appropriation from the DWR (if the riparian claim were a dormant one). The effect of implementing sub-alternative 3i (priority date based on date of severance) would have similar implications if riparian claims were allowed for extra-preferred uses (sub-alternative 3c) or for uses not involving a direct diversion of streamflow (sub-alternative 3f). If appropriations were issued for these categories of riparian claims with a priority date based on the date of severance, these appropriations could pre-date most appropriations on most streams. Because livestock watering uses are likely to have been initiated on or near the date of severance, how priority dates are assigned to adjudicated riparian claims for livestock watering is less significant than regarding other riparian claims. Stockwatering. The significance of sub-alter- natives 3j (exempting individual domestic and livestock watering riparian uses from riparian right registration and adjudication requirements) and 3k (giving riparian water users for individual domestic and stockwatering purposes the option to register and adjudicate their riparian rights) have been described relative to Alternative #2 under the heading stockwatering. Implementa- tion of sub-alternative 3k or failure to implement option 3j further suggest, however, that appro- priations could be acquired for individual do- mestic and livestock watering purposes and that the DWR would be required to administer appro- priations accordingly. If many livestock watering appropriations were acquired, and if they were given fairly senior priority dates (as is likely at least for active riparian livestock watering claims), this could greatly increase DWR water administration responsibilities during periods of water shortages. Registration v. integration. Sub-alternative