I do, but I know they used to irrigate from the creek, so I'm guessing the right still exists. Nebraska is a "first in time, first in right" state and so if we had rights back then, we should still have rights ahead of any new irrigators.
I don't know Nebraska law, but I would definitely recommend checking with one of your friends who practice water law.
A few things I think it would be helpful to mention:
1. It makes sense that NE would have a "first in time, first in right" principle for surface water (SW) use. As a GENERAL rule, states west of the 100th meridian use the prior approrpriations doctrine (first in time, first in right) to govern SW use, while states east of the 100th meridian use riparian rights to control SW use.
2. Under prior approriations, the appropriative rights generally are NOT attached to the land (unlike Riparian rights, which require land ownership). It is a personal right that can be sold or licensed.
3. Under prior approriations, non-use of the water can terminate the appropriative right. Appropriations rules inherently favor use of water (hence first in time...). Most prior appropriations states have statutes that presume abandonment or forfeiture (different legal meanings) after a certain period of non-use. For instance, Texas has a 3-year abandonment statute and a 10-year forfeiture statute.
Basically, if a senior appropriator does not use the water within a given time period, the right to use the water reverts back into the “pool” to be received by the next senior person who has appropriative rights.
4. From my limited knowledge, Nebraska (like Texas) is a hybrid state, and it's laws mostly resemble prior approrpriations. However, the only "pure" PA states are AK, AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, and WY (and all are west of the 100th meridian).
The point of all of this is that the rules governing water use are complicated and state-specific. I would definitely check with someone familiar with Nebraska's water laws.
