Enterprise Irrigation District v. Willis
284 N.W. 326, 1939 Neb. LEXIS 42, 135 Neb. 827 (1939)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state legislature cannot retroactively apply a statutory limitation on the quantity of water that can be appropriated for irrigation to a pre-existing, vested water right where the right was established under prior law without such quantity limits and the water is being put to beneficial use without waste, as such an application would constitute a deprivation of a vested property right without due process.
Facts:
- In 1889, the Enterprise Ditch Company appropriated water from the North Platte River in an amount exceeding 138.90 second-feet, subject only to the common-law rule of beneficial use.
- The Enterprise Ditch Company later sold its irrigation works and water appropriation to the Enterprise Irrigation District (plaintiff).
- On January 7, 1897, the State Board of Irrigation formally adjudicated the plaintiff's appropriation as valid for 138.90 second-feet with a priority date of March 28, 1889, limited only by the amount that could be applied to beneficial use.
- Prior to 1895, Nebraska irrigation laws did not limit the quantity of water that could be appropriated, except that it must be for a beneficial purpose.
- In 1911, the Nebraska legislature enacted a statute limiting irrigation allotments to 'three acre-feet in the aggregate during one calendar year for each acre of land,' which defendants contend applies to the plaintiff's pre-existing appropriation.
- The Enterprise Irrigation District used 3.50 acre-feet of water for every acre of irrigable land in its district, with 3.03 acre-feet diverted from the North Platte River.
- Farmers within the plaintiff district testified that the water was used without waste and their crops were in need of water when state officials threatened to close the headgates.
- Defendants Robert H. Willis, chief of the bureau of irrigation, water power and drainage, and A. C. Tilley, state engineer, threatened to close the plaintiff's headgates, asserting the plaintiff had exceeded the statutory three acre-feet limit.
Procedural Posture:
- The Enterprise Irrigation District (plaintiff) initiated a suit for an injunction against Robert H. Willis, chief of the bureau of irrigation, water power and drainage, and A. C. Tilley, state engineer (defendants), in the trial court (court of first instance).
- The plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from preventing it from diverting all water that could be beneficially used for crops.
- The trial court denied the injunction, implicitly finding against the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
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 a state statute limiting irrigation appropriations to three acre-feet per acre per year retroactively apply to an appropriation right vested prior to the statute's enactment, and if so, is it a constitutional exercise of police power when the appropriator is using water beneficially without waste and needs more than the statutory limit?
Opinions:
Majority - Carter, J.
No, a state statute limiting irrigation appropriations to three acre-feet per acre per year does not retroactively apply to an appropriation right vested prior to the statute's enactment, nor is such an application a constitutional exercise of police power where the water is being used beneficially without waste. The court reasoned that an appropriator who complies with existing statutory requirements obtains a vested property right, and while the state can regulate and supervise water use under its police power to protect adjudicated rights and prevent waste, it cannot divest these vested rights by imposing new quantity limitations retroactively. Interfering with the quantity of water under a vested right, to the material injury of its holder, constitutes a deprivation of a vested right, which violates the due process clauses of both the Nebraska Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court found that the evidence showed the plaintiff's district had applied the water to a beneficial use without waste, and the crops were in need of water. The expert testimony presented by the defendants, suggesting three acre-feet was sufficient, was deemed insufficient to overcome the plaintiff's undisputed evidence, particularly given the dissimilar conditions under which the experts' experiments were conducted. Furthermore, the court noted that earlier irrigation acts (1895 and 1919) explicitly stated they should not be construed to interfere with or impair rights appropriated and acquired prior to their passage, indicating a clear legislative intent not to apply such limitations retroactively. Therefore, the statutory provision limiting water to three acre-feet was not intended to affect plaintiff’s 1889 vested appropriation right.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the protection of vested water rights against subsequent legislative attempts to limit their quantity retroactively. It establishes that while a state can exercise its police power to regulate and supervise water use to prevent waste and ensure equitable distribution, this power is not absolute and cannot be used to arbitrarily divest pre-existing property rights without due process. The ruling places a high evidentiary burden on the state to prove waste or non-beneficial use when seeking to restrict a vested right, especially when scientific expert testimony is contradicted by practical local experience. This decision provides an important precedent for safeguarding long-established property interests in natural resources against later legislative curtailment, influencing future cases involving resource allocation and regulatory takings.
