WSP01433 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" J l::ti. 31 would require the DWR 10 adjudicate riparian claims but not to issue new appropriations, Sub- alternative 3m would require adjudication of riparian claims and issuance of new appropri- ations. If alternative 31 were implemented, the decision regarding whether adjudicated riparian claims should be integrated into the appropri- ative system could be deferred. However. ripar- iaos and appropriators would know the extent of outstanding riparian claims. Riparian-appropri. ativeconflictswould still be resolved by litigation. but the issues of the existence of riparian rights. the extent of riparian land. elc. would not need to be judicially resolved. because these issues would have been established in the riparian claim adjudication proceedings. The court would need to decide only how each riparian-appropriative conflict ought 10 be resolved. If alternative 3m were implemented the new adjudicated appro- priations would be subject to DWR administra- tive protection and regulation. depending on whether the riparian claim represented a senior or a junior appropriation. Methods of Implementation. Implementing Alternative #3 would require enacting legislation (1) requiring all riparian water right claims to be registered with the DWR within a stated period (e.g., three years), (2) requiring DWR adjudication of riparian claims. and (3) establishing that failure to register a claim would constitute a forfeiture of any riparian right. The legislation should also: (1) define what con- stitutes riparian land. (2) specify the purposes of water use for which riparian claims could be registered and adjudicated, (3) specify whether dormant riparian claims could be registered and adjudicated, (4) specify whether uses not in- volving a direct physical diversion of streamflow could be registered and adjudicated, (5) specify how priority dates would be assigned 10 riparian claims, (6) specify how livestock watering claims would be treated, and (7) specify whether claims are to be adjudicated only or whether new appro- priations would be issued for adjudicated riparian claims. Administrative costs could be substantial. depending on the number of claims filed. The primary costs would be the notice requirements (described relative to Alternative #2 under the heading of methods of implementation), the administrative costs of processing and filing the riparian right claims, and the expense of holding adjudication hearings in every river basin where riparian rights were filed. As noted above, adjudi- cating riparian claims statewide could take five years or more, depending on what claims can be adjudicated and how they are adjudicated. The DWR has estimated that appropriation cancell- ation hearings cost approximately 5200 per ap- propriation.1f 5.000 riparian claims were filed, the administrative costs could reach 51 million. If riparian adjudication hearings were controvers- ial, the administrative cost per hearing would be higher. In addition, any appropriations issued for adjudicated claims would constitute additional appropriations which the DWR would be required to administer during periods of water shortage. Changes in Water Use Patterns. Implementing Alternative #"3 (adjudicating riparian claims) could have significant impacts on surface water use patterns. although the likely nature 01 those impacts depends on which set of registration and adjudication sub-alternatives are selected. The major factors are what purposes of riparian use are authorized and how the priority date for adjUdicated riparian claims would be assigned. If priority dates are based on severance (sub-alternative 3i), the potential exists for a substantial change in water use patterns. as many appropriators would become junior to adjudicated riparian claims. This change in water use patterns would be even greater if dormant claims (sub-alternative 3e). uses not enumerated in the preference statutes (sub-al- ternative 3c) or uses not involving a direct diversion of streamflow (sub-alternative 3f) are allowed_ These changes would also reduce the amount of water available for future appropri- ation. At the same time, dormant. extra-prefer- ence and "non-diverting" uses for which riparian claims had been adjudicated would be protected with regard to future appropriations. If priority dates are based on the earlier of the date of initial use or the date of DWR filing (sub- alternative 3hl,thechanges in water use patterns would be less than if the priority date were based on severance. Changes in water use patterns could still be substantial, however.lfextra-prefer- ence uses (sub-alternative 3c) or "non'diverting" uses (sub-alternative 3f) were authorized, current appropriative uses could be displaced to the extent the riparian claimants could establish a relatively early priority date. If the priority date were limited to the date the riparian claim was filed with the DWR, however. the primary water use impact would be that less water would be available for future appropriations. The adjudica- tion of dormant riparian rights would change existing water use patterns only if they repre- sented extra-preference or non-diverting uses. Otherwise they would have the same effect as if a new appropriation had been issued. If riparian claims for extra-preferred or non- diverting uses are not adjudicated (i.e.. jf sub- 4.9