Opinion ID: 1591196
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: In re Application U-2

Text: NPPD argues that the DNR's cancellation of 0.65 cfs of incidental underground water storage is inconsistent with this court's interpretation of the term service in In re Application U-2, supra. Using the definition of service in In re Application U-2, NPPD argues that seepage from the Dawson County Canal recharged the ground water irrigation wells on the 117 acres which NPPD had transferred from the canal, so those acres should still be considered as part of NPPD's service. NPPD argues that the question posed is the meaning of the term service. We disagree, and believe that the question is rather the meaning of direct irrigation service, the term used in the May 1988 order, which grants NPPD its water rights as follows: With some 23,222 acres found remaining in effect under the various natural flow appropriations, Dawson County Canal may divert a combined maximum 331.74 cfs for direct irrigation service. In recent years the State has limited natural flow diversions to 461.00 cfs. Allowing maximum natural flow diversions to continue at 461.00 cfs would, by implication, necessitate granting [the difference of] 129.26 cfs for incidental underground storage.... There is no dispute as to how the original grant of water rights was calculated in both the November 1987 and May 1988 orders. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 46-231 (Cum. Supp.2002) sets forth the proper ratio to apply: An allotment from the natural flow of streams for irrigation shall not exceed one cubic foot per second of time for each seventy acres of land.... Such limitations do not apply to storage waters.... By applying this ratio to the total of 23,222 acres of land, NPPD was entitled to 331.74 cfs. This is the amount which NPPD was granted, with the DNR specifically noting that the grant was for direct irrigation service. Section 46-231 expressly provides that the ratio is for allotment[s] from the natural flow of streams. By implication, then, direct irrigation service means irrigation from the natural flow of streams. We conclude also that the natural flow of streams must equate to surface water irrigation, but not underground water storage. This conclusion is reinforced when we consider that incidental underground water storage, the very water right which NPPD contends is part of their direct irrigation service, was granted to NPPD separately from its direct irrigation service in the May 1988 order, and the limitations in § 46-231 specifically exclude storage waters. NPPD argues that this court must rely on In re Application U-2, 226 Neb. 594, 413 N.W.2d 290 (1987), to define the term service. We disagree. Reference to In re Application U-2 is not necessary, since a plain reading of the May 1988 order indicates a meaning for the term direct irrigation service. Furthermore, that case defines the term service, but does not purport to define direct irrigation service. NPPD's contention that the DNR's cancellation of 0.65 cfs of incidental underground water storage was inconsistent with In re Application U-2 is without merit.