| OCR Text |
Show Chapter 27. NEBRASKA CONTENTS Page 1. Development of Nebraska Water Law__________________________ 461 2. State Organizational Structure for Water Administration and Control- 464 2.1 Administration of Water Rights__________________..... 464 2.2 Resolution of Water Use Conflicts-........____________ 465 2.3 Other Agencies Having Water Resource Responsibilities____ 465 3. Surface Waters_____.....__________________________________ 466 3.1 Method of Acquiring Rights__________________________ 466 3.2 Nature and Limit of Rights__________________________ 466 3.3 Changes, Sales, and Transfers_________________________ 467 3.4 Loss of Rights____________________________________ 467 3.5 Storage Waters, Artificial Lakes, and Ponds______________ 468 3.6 Springs__________________________________________ 468 3.7 Diffused Surface Waters_____________________________ 468 4. Ground Water________________________.....______....._____ 469 Publications Available........__________________________________ 470 DISCUSSION 1. Development of Nebraska Water Law Nebraska has accomplished the transition from a system of riparian water rights to an appropriation regime with relative ease. There has been a great deal of water litigation in the State, although the details of the irreconcilable conflict between the two systems were not finally resolved until the State Supreme Court decision in 1966 in Wasser- burger v. Coffee.1 Thus, although one could start with the date, it is important to review briefly the role of riparianism in early Nebraska law.2 Early decisions in the 1890's recognized the riparian system in Nebraska, and in 1903, the State refused to make a complete substi- tution of the appropriation system for the law of riparian rights because of the diversity of conditions which existed in the State.3 Actu- ally, the riparian theory was wholly unsuited to the western part of the State, which is arid and largely dependent upon irrigation to maintain its agricultural economy. Despite this reluctance to recog- nize appropriation as the exclusive system, the right to appropriate water \y diverting and applying it to a beneficial use was impliedly recognized as early as 1877.4 The first important statute, however, was the Raynor Irrigation Law of 1889 which recognized appropri- *180 Neb. 149, 141 N.W. 2d 738 (1966), modified In part In 180 Neb. 569, 144 N.W. 2d 209 (1966). s In recounting this history, credit must be given to James A. Doyle, dean emeritus of the Crelghton University School of Law, and to Clayton K. Teutter, a lawyer and an economist, for excellent articles. See J. Doyle, Water Rights in Nebraska, 20 Neb. L. Rev. 1 (1941) and 24 Neb. L. Rev. 385 (1950) ; and C. Yeutter, Legal-Economic Critique of Nebraska Watercourse Law, 44 Neb. L. Rev. 11 (1965). Although these comments were published before the Wasserburger decision, they undoubtedly exerted considerable influence on the developmnt of the State's water law. » Meng. v. Coffee, 67 Neb. 500, 93 N.W. 713 (1903). * Neb. laws, 1877, at 168. 461 |
