| OCR Text |
Show 466 NEBRASKA C. PRIVATE AGENCIES Nonprofit mutual irigation companies may be organized under special statutes which authorize them to borrow money, issue bonds, and mortgage their property and franchises.81 Special assessments for maintenance expenses may ibe levied against the stockholders and become a lien on the stock. The liens may be foreclosed by a public sale of the stock. Water user's associations may also be organized for the purpose of contracting with the Federal Government for reclama- tion funds.32 3. Surface Waters 3.1 Method of Acquiring Rights A permit to appropriate water may be obtained from the depart- ment of water resources. It is possible that appropriation rights may be acquired by prescription.33 Riparian rights based on patents issued prior to 1895 are discussed in section 1, supra. 3.2 Nature and Limit of Rights Beneficial use is referred to in the Nebraska statutes only in- directly : "The right to divert unappropriated waters of every natural stream for beneficial use shall never be denied."8* A Nebraska statute limits the maximum allowable "duty of water" from the natural flow of streams for irrigation purposes to no more than 1 cubic foot per second for each 70 acres of land and no more than 3 acre-feet each year for each acre of land.38 As a further limita- tion, the amount used shall not in any event exceed the least amount of water that experience may show is necessary for the production of crops, according to principles of good husbandry. These restrictions do not apply to storage waters or to very minor appropriations. The Statute does not apply to vested rights created prior to its enactment which have made "beneficial use" of a greater amount of water.38 The problem of carriage losses has been considered in connection with the Platte and North Platte Rivers in the leading case of State ex. rel. Gary v. Oochran.37 Over the objection of upstream junior ap- propriators, it was held that downstream prior appropriators are entitled to the delivery of usable quantities of water even though carriage losses may be as much as 77 percent of the water. Although this may seem to be contrary to the usual reasonable use restriction on water appropriations, it must be noted that the loss occurred in the natural channel through no wasteful or inefficient act of the downstream appropriators, and the court felt that the upstream ap- propriators received their adjudicated priorities with knowledge that some hardships might exist. The administrative officials, it was said, si Sees. 46-269 to 46-271. 32 Sec. 46-272. »» See 3.4, infra. 81 Sec. 46-204. See also sec. 46-229. 3s Sec. 46-231. 38 Enterprise Irr. Dist. v. Willis, 135 Neb. 827. 284 N.W. 326 (1939). »7 138 Neb. 163, 292 N.W. 239 (1940). |
