Lexplug logoLexplug

Bamford v. Upper Republican Natural Resources District

Nebraska Supreme Court
245 Neb. 299, 512 N.W.2d 642 (1994)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state, exercising its police power, may constitutionally regulate the use of groundwater through a statutory framework that delegates authority to administrative agencies to set withdrawal limits in designated control areas where water is scarce. Such a regulation does not constitute a compensable taking unless it deprives the landowner of all economically beneficial use of their property.


Facts:

  • The land owned by appellants Gregory L. Bamford and Bamford Partnership is located within a ground water 'control area' designated in 1977 due to concerns about the water supply.
  • In 1988, the Upper Republican Natural Resources District (URNRD) established a water allocation for the control area, limiting users to 75 acre-inches of groundwater per irrigated acre for the five-year period from January 1, 1988, to December 31, 1992.
  • The appellants agreed to a 'pooling' arrangement for their nine wells, allowing the total five-year water allocation to be distributed among the wells as they saw fit.
  • By the end of 1991, four years into the five-year allocation period, the appellants had withdrawn all the groundwater allocated to their nine wells for the entire period.
  • In fact, the appellants' withdrawals had exceeded their total five-year allocation by approximately 12 acre-inches per irrigated acre, with a full year remaining in the allocation period.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Upper Republican Natural Resources District (URNRD) issued a cease and desist order on March 12, 1992, to prevent the appellants from further withdrawing ground water.
  • The appellants filed two separate actions in the district court (trial court): one petitioning for a review of the URNRD's order and another seeking an injunction to stop its enforcement.
  • URNRD filed a counterclaim seeking its own injunction to prohibit the appellants from withdrawing water in violation of the allocation.
  • The district court denied the appellants' request for an injunction and granted the injunction sought by URNRD.
  • After reviewing the administrative record, the district court affirmed URNRD's issuance of the cease and desist order and dismissed the appellants' petition.
  • The appellants appealed the district court's decisions to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act, which authorizes a Natural Resources District to limit groundwater withdrawals in a designated control area and enforce those limits with a cease and desist order, constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority or effect a taking of property without just compensation?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Boslaugh

No. The Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act is a constitutional exercise of the state's police power and is not an improper delegation of legislative authority, nor does its enforcement constitute a taking requiring compensation. The statutory framework provides adequate standards and notice for Natural Resources Districts to regulate water use, which is a permissible delegation of authority in a complex field like water management. While the right to use groundwater is a constitutionally protected property interest, it is not absolute and is subject to reasonable regulation for the public good, especially when the supply is insufficient for all users. The designation of the 'control area' settled the question of water insufficiency. A regulatory taking only occurs if the owner is deprived of all economically beneficial use of their land, which the appellants failed to demonstrate, as their inability to grow a specific water-intensive crop does not render the land economically useless.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the authority of Nebraska's Natural Resources Districts to enforce groundwater regulations under the Ground Water Management and Protection Act. It affirms that the state's police power extends to limiting water use to conserve a public resource, particularly in designated areas of scarcity. The ruling sets a high bar for landowners claiming a regulatory taking due to water restrictions, requiring them to prove a complete deprivation of all economic use, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's standard in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. This precedent strengthens the hand of administrative agencies in managing natural resources and clarifies that common law water rights can be modified by legislative action to address public policy concerns like water conservation.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bamford v. Upper Republican Natural Resources District (1994)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"