Opinion ID: 2185628
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: reduction of the flow rate

Text: Beerline's first assignment of error involves a question of law concerning the Department's authority to reduce its flow rate under appropriation D-887. In order to address Beerline's argument, it is necessary for us to briefly review the legal and factual circumstances surrounding construction of the Beerline Canal. Under the irrigation act of 1889, a person could obtain a water right by posting a notice of the claimed right at the point of diversion, filing a copy of the notice with the county clerk within 10 days of its posting, commencing excavation or construction of the diversion works within 60 days of the posting, and prosecuting the work diligently and uninterruptedly to completion. Comp.Stat. ch. 93 a, art. I, §§ 8 and 9 (1889). Compliance with these procedures resulted in the claimant's right to use the water relating back to the date the notice was posted. Comp.Stat. ch. 93 a, art. I, § 11 (1889). The only limitation upon the quantity of water available under an appropriation acquired in this manner was that the person holding the rights use no more water than good husbandry requires for the crop or crops that [the holder] cultivates.... Comp.Stat. ch. 93 a, art. II, § 14 (1889). This limitation merely codified the common-law rule that a person could not divert, even under a valid appropriation, more water than he could put to a beneficial use. State v. Birdwood Irrigation District, 154 Neb. 52, 46 N.W.2d 884 (1951). The water appropriation laws were substantially changed in 1895. In that year the Legislature charged a state board of irrigation (Board) with adjudicating the water rights and priorities of all those on record as claiming an appropriation. Comp.Stat. ch. 93 a, art. II, §§ 4 and 16 (1895). The 1895 act provided that no allotment for irrigation shall exceed one cubic foot per second for each 70 acres of land for which said appropriation shall be made, but also that [n]othing in this act contained shall be so construed as to interfere with or impair the rights to water appropriated and acquired prior to the passage of this act. Comp.Stat. ch. 93 a, art. II, §§ 20 and 49 (1895). Finally, the 1895 act established a procedure by which persons aggrieved by a determination of the Board could appeal to the district court within 60 days of the Board's decision. Comp.Stat. ch. 93 a, art. II, §§ 22 and 23 (1895). Pursuant to a claim affidavit filed by those claiming rights to water from the Beerline Ditch, the Board held a hearing on July 14, 1896, to adjudicate the claimants' water rights. The Board found that a notice of appropriation was posted at the point of diversion on October 13, 1894, a copy thereof was filed with the county clerk on October 16, and began excavation and construction of the canal began on October 20. Based upon these findings, the Board determined that Beerline held a water right with a priority date of October 13, 1894, for the irrigation of approximately 2,100 acres located in Township 19 North, Range 48 West of the 6th P.M. Regarding the quantity of water available under the appropriation, the Board stated that the amount diverted shall not exceed thirty (30) cubic feet per second of time, neither shall it exceed the capacity of said ditch or canal nor the least amount of water that experience may hereafter indicate as necessary for the production of crops in the exercise of good husbandry; and, further, said appropriation under any circumstances, shall be limited to one-seventieth (1/70) of a cubic foot per second of time for each acre of land to which water is actually and usefully applied on or before September 1, 1899. On October 26, 1905, upon the petition of Beerline, the State Engineer held a hearing and determined that certain lands entitled to irrigation from the Beerline Canal were inadvertently omitted from the Board's original adjudication order. The State Engineer accordingly amended the original order to correctly reflect the lands entitled to water from the canal, noting that the original judgment and finding is in all other respects approved and confirmed. No appeal was taken from either of these adjudications. Based upon the foregoing, Beerline argues that because it acquired its water right at a time when the only quantity limitation upon water appropriations was that the holder use no more water than good husbandry required, its right to continue diverting this amount is a vested right to which the additional limitations included in the 1895 act do not apply. With this proposition we agree. See Enterprise Irrigation District v. Willis, 135 Neb. 827, 284 N.W. 326 (1939) (provisions in later irrigation statutes limiting the quantity of water available under an appropriation do not apply retroactively to appropriations acquired pursuant to the 1889 act). However, reference to Willis is not sufficient to dispose of this case. In North Loup River P.P. & I. Dist. v. Loup River P.P. Dist., 162 Neb. 22, 74 N.W.2d 863 (1956), the Department of Roads and Irrigation granted the North Loup River Public Power and Irrigation District certain water rights for the purpose of irrigation. The department's order required that the irrigation district complete construction of the project and apply water to the beneficial use by October 1, 1944. Thereafter, the irrigation district applied for three separate extensions of the deadline for applying water to the beneficial use. The irrigation works had been completed in 1938, and the water had been available for use for more than 10 years at the time the third application for an extension was filed. The department granted the latter two applications over the objection of the Loup River Public Power District, and the public power district appealed. On appeal, this court reversed the decision of the department granting the extensions. In so doing the court explained that in adjudicating water rights pursuant to statutory authority, the department exercises quasi judicial powers. Id. at 26, 74 N.W.2d at 866. Noting that the applicable statute granted a party adversely affected by a department decision the right to an appeal, the court held that when no such appeal is taken a decision of the department becomes a final and binding adjudication. The court reasoned that [i]f this were not so the public record required to be made in the office of the department would serve no useful purpose as a public notice of the terms, conditions, and limitations of the appropriator's adjudicated grant. Id. at 29-30, 74 N.W.2d at 868. Thus, the court concluded that the department's original order requiring the irrigation district to complete construction and apply water to the beneficial use by October 1, 1944, was not subject to subsequent modification. The principles enunciated in North Loup River are directly applicable to this case. In adjudicating Beerline's water rights, the Board exercised quasi-judicial authority. Though the 1895 act provided a mechanism for aggrieved parties to appeal Board decisions, Beerline did not appeal the Board's 1905 order. The Board's action therefore became a final and binding adjudication of the rights acquired under the 1894 appropriation. Beerline cannot now collaterally attack the Board's decision. See Schilke v. School Dist. No. 107, 207 Neb. 448, 299 N.W.2d 527 (1980) (the rule that a judgment is not subject to collateral attack if the court had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter applies to administrative boards and tribunals acting in a quasi-judicial capacity). The 1905 adjudication clearly limits Beerline to 1 cfs per 70 acres of land to which water is actually and usefully applied. Though the Board may have erred as a matter of law in imposing that restriction, Beerline did not appeal the Board's decision and cannot now collaterally attack it. Given the uncontested finding that in the 3 years prior to the hearing, Beerline irrigated only 993 acres granted rights under appropriation D-887, the Department did not err in reducing Beerline's flow rate to 14.19 cfs. Beerline's first assignment of error is without merit.