WSP11358 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f:' .." *' ~" e':'-) .... .j . ~ -.~ PREFACE Immediately prior to publishing this report, a highly relevant United States Supreme Court decision was handed down in the case Sporhase et al. v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas, Attorney General, No. 81-613. The implications are so important to the study and the re9ion it must be noted, but time does not allow the decision to be fully analyzed. The entire decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens for the court and a dissenting opinion by Justice Will i am Rehnqui st with Justi ce Sandra Day 0' Conner joi ni n9 is incl uded in this report as Appendix A. In general a farmer with a contiguous tract of land that lay in both Colorado and Nebraska and with a water well on the Nebraska side but used to supply irrigation water to Colorado challenged the constitutionality of a Nebraska statute restricting the withdrawal of ground water from a well in Nebraska for delivery use in another state. In this case Sporhase desired to pump Ogallala Aquifer water from farmland in Nebraska to irrigate land on the same farm but across the state boundary in Colorado. The well was registered in Nebraska, but the Sporhases had never appl ied for a permit to transport the water to Colorado. No attempt was made by the well owner to sell the water to another business or person in or out of Nebraska, but rather only to use the resource on his land which was adjoining, but in another state. The State of Nebraska allows for "export" of ground water to another state so long as the state in which the water is to be used grants recipro- cal rights to withdraw and transport water from that state for use in Nebraska"l. Although Sporhase had not appl ied for the appropriate pennit, he sought to have that provision struck down. The state of Colorado does not allow for such reciprocity, in fact bans export of ground water. 1 946-613.01 Nebraska Revised Statutes. vi