WSP01433

• File Number: 8407.400
• Description: Platte River Basin - River Basin General Publications - Nebraska
• State: NE
• Basin: South Platte
• Water Division: 1
• Date: 3/1/1983
• Author: Nebraska Natural Res
• Title: Policy Issue Study on Selected Water Rights Issues - Riparian Rights
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

alternatives 3c or 3f are not implemented),
current uses of these types could be displaced by
appropriations authorized in the future.
Water use impacts associated with adjudicat-
ing riparian stockwatering claims are insignifi-
cant, although they could be locally significant in
water short areas where appropriators were
required to curtail withdrawals for the benefit of
stockmen.
If adjudicated riparian claims can displace
existing or unperfected (pending) appropria-
tions, and if riparian right adjudication proceed-
ings therefore are controversial, the adjudication
proceedings could take several years to
complete. This would make the status of existing
and pending appropriations more uncertain, and
could discourage new appropriations.
Other possible water use changes associated
with adjudicating dormant riparian claims are
discussed relative to Alternative #2 under the
heading changes in water use patterns.

Physical/Hydrological/Environmental 1m pacts

Implementing the sub-alternatives dealing
with preferred purposes of use, (sub-alternatives
3d, 3h and 3i) would result in no change in
physical/hydrologic/environmental impacts
from the existing system. Implementing the sub-
alternatives dealing with extra-preference uses
(sub-alternatives 3c, 3e and 3f) has the potential
for creating dramatic changes in water use
patterns such that impacts cannot be predicted.
This would be particularly true if priority dates
were assigned on the basis of severance (sub-
alternative 3i). Implementing the sub-alterna-
tives that could lead to controversy in riparian
right adjudication between riparians and appro-
priators (sub-alternatives 3a, 3c, 3e and 3f) could
lead to increased ground water use due to the
uncertain legal status of existing and future
appropriations. This in turn could lead to
reductions in ground water storage, and in in-
creases in streamflow.

Socio-Economic Impacts.

For the most part the economic impacts des-
cribed for the previous alternative apply with
equal force to this alternative. Adjudication, how-
ever, would undoubtedly reduce claims below
the level claimed by registration since not all
registered claims would be found legally suffi-
cient in an adjudication procedure. Sub-altern-
ative 3m seems to contemplate issuance of an
appropriation permit for adjudicated. claims.
Adjudication, rather (sub-alternative 31), might be
used to quantify riparian claims only, reserving
the issue of whether or how the claims ought to

4-10

be incorporated into the appropriation system.
Economically, the process should be broken into
discrete steps with a decision made to continue
the process only if expected benefits exceed
expected costs. Thus, the first step should be
registration (Alternative #2). If relatively few
claims are registered a riparian rights "problem"
might not exist and further action might not be
required. If further action was deemed
necessary, the riparian rights themselves might
be adjudicated. The magnitude of adjudicated
claims might obviate the need for further action.
Only if adjudication indicated a problem would
further action to integrate riparian rights into the
economic system be justified economically.
As to specific sub-alternatives, alternatives 3a,
3c, and 3e are economically superior to altern-
atives 3b, 3d, 3f, and 3g for the reasons given in
Alternative 2. Similarly, alternatives 3j and 3k
should be rejected, at least with respect to live-
stock watering claims. As to alternatives 3h and
3i, it is doubtful that any priority date other than
the date of severance from the public domain
could be sustained constitutionally. Conse-
quently, to avoid the considerable costs of
constitutional litigation, alternative 3i would be
favored economically over alternative 3h.

Alternative #4: Define domestic use
of surface water to include the
watering of domestic, farm and
ranch animals in normal farm and
ranch operations uptothe normal
dryland grazing capacity of the
land; and require the Nebraska
Department of Water Resources
to administer non-domestic ap-
propriations for the benefit of
domestic surface water users.

Sub-alternative 4a: Require the Department
of Water Resources to administer non-do-
mestic appropriations for the benefit of
domestic surface water users only if there is
no other reliable source of domestic water
available.

Sub-alternative 4b: Require the Department
of Water Resources to administer non-do-
mestic appropriations for the benefit of
domestic surface water users even if there
is another reliable source of domestic water
available.

Description.

Alternative #4 recognizes that the primary
reason riparian rights have any current legal