Opinion ID: 1913609
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Continuity and Dependability

Text: Wyoming next argues that the director misapplied the relevant legal standard regarding water availability. Wyoming also argues that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to correct this misapplication. The director's approach to water availability and Wyoming's argument regarding that approach cannot be understood without some discussion of the Enders Reservoir case, to which we now turn. In Enders Reservoir, three irrigation districts applied for a transbasin diversion. The applicants proposed to divert water from the South Platte River basin to the Frenchman River, which flows into the Enders Reservoir and eventually into the Republican River. The director found that there was insufficient available water: `[On] average, less than one-fourth [applicants'] maximum demand would have been available at their proposed diversion point.' ... `[T]here is not a source of unappropriated water at [a]pplicants' proposed South Platte River diversion point sufficient to meet their demand.' Enders Reservoir, 226 Neb. at 156, 410 N.W.2d at 107-08. Due in part to insufficient water availability, the director denied the application. This court affirmed the director's decision. We recognized that to be available, a water supply did not need to be perfectly reliable. [T]o be available in a practical sense the supply of water must be fairly continuous and dependable. Id. at 156, 410 N.W.2d at 108. See Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419, 42 S.Ct. 552, 66 L.Ed. 999 (1922). Applying this standard to the transbasin diversion, we stated that water clearly would not be present in such a quantity as to supply the [applicants'] desired amount on a fairly continuous and dependable basis. Enders Reservoir, 226 Neb. at 156, 410 N.W.2d at 108. Immediately following this statement, the Enders Reservoir opinion contains an economic discussion focusing on the likely success of the applicants' proposed irrigation project. In this economic discussion, we considered a New Mexico case and a Texas case, both of which held that an application could be denied if there was so little water that the project would be doomed to failure. We found that the director had the power to act in the public interest and to deny an application doomed to failure. With regard to CPNRD's applications, the director merged Enders Reservoir 's water availability analysis with its economic analysis. On one hand, the director recognized that the actual flows were often less than the requested flows. The director noted that the flow regime was highly variable and that the species identified in the applications had adapted to the fluctuations. On the other hand, the director explained that the instream flow applications did not contemplate investment or construction and thus would not require revenues to offset expenses. The director judged conventional methods for assessing proposals inappropriate for CPNRD's applications. The director determined that the fairly continuous and dependable standard had to be considered in the context of the application at hand. The director concluded that CPNRD's applications met the standard. The Court of Appeals did not reach any conclusion on this issue. The court set forth some of the director's findings and briefly discussed Enders Reservoir. The court then distinguished Enders Reservoir from CPNRD's application because the latter did not require great financial expenditure. In re Applications A-17004 et al., 4 Neb.C.A. 182, 196, 512 N.W.2d 392, 401 (1993). Wyoming argues that the director has established two separate standardsone for irrigation projects and one for instream flow applications. Wyoming further argues that if the director can view the standard within the context of a particular application, then the director can arbitrarily set the standard and decide when the standard has been met. We find that the director correctly considered the purpose of the requested flows. We further find that the record supports the director's determination that there was a fairly continuous and dependable flow. A determination regarding water availability cannot and should not be divorced from the applicant's purpose. There are two ways in which the applicant's purpose affects the fairly continuous and dependable standard. First, the nature of a fairly continuous and dependable flow may change depending upon the nature of the application. An application to divert water is not the same as an application for instream flows; an irrigation project is not the same as a habitat project. If an irrigation project fails because insufficient water was available, then there is a loss on the investment and a loss to any junior downstream appropriators who could have used the diverted water. In contrast, if a habitat project fails, then there is minimal, if any, loss of investment, and there is no loss to junior downstream appropriators, because the water was never removed from the stream. Second, in the context of instream flow applications, the threshold of a fairly dependable and continuous flow may change depending on the specific goals of the application. A wildlife project is not the same as a recreation project. In the context of an instream flow application to maintain existing wildlife habitats, we hold that fairly continuous and dependable means the flow regime which the species can bear. Put another way, there is sufficient water available under § 46-2,115(1) when there is enough water to maintain the wildlife habitat sought by an applicant. The purposes of CPNRD's applications were (1) to maintain habitats for fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates that serve as a food source for least tern and piping plovers, and (2) to maintain staging and roosting habitats for sandhill cranes and whooping cranes. Although the flows in the river are highly variable, the record reflects that the species identified in the applications have adapted to the variable flow regime. There is not so little water that the project is doomed to failure; to the contrary, the habitats are likely to succeed. We conclude that because the habitats sought by the current applications can survive under the existing flow regime, there is sufficient water available.