PUB00160 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Svorhase Sporhase v. Nebraska, 458 U.S. 941 (1982) exemplifies this alertness. It is the leading modern case on the relation between state efforts to control groundwater and the Commerce Clause. It involved a farmer, Joy Sporhase, who owned tracts of land straddling the boundary between Nebraska and Colorado. ld. at 944. He used a well on his Nebraska land to irrigate land on both sides of the boundary. ld. This action placed him in violation of a statute that required a permit for exporting groundwater from Nebraska. ld. The latter allowed such export if "the withdrawal of groundwater requested is reasonable, is not contrary to the conservation and use of groundwater, and is not otherwise detrimental to the public welfare." Neb. Rev. Stat. 46-613.01 (1978). The statute also called for the state receiving Nebraska groundwater to allow its groundwater to be exported to Nebraska.3 Nebraska sued Sporhase to make him stop his un-permitted pumping. Sporhase, 458 U.S. at 944. Sporhase claimed that the permit which the state demanded would be unconstitutional because it violated the Commerce Clause. See Gregory S. Weber, Forging a More Coherent Groundwater Policy in California: State and Federal Constitutional Law Challenges to Local Groundwater, 34 Santa Clara L. Rev. 373, 460 (1994); see also Nebraska v. Sporhase, 305 N.W.2d 614, 704-5 (Neb. 1981 ). Sporhase thus presented the United States Supreme Court with three questions: (1) whether ground water is an article of commerce and therefore subject to congressional regulation; (2) whether the Nebraska restriction on the interstate transfer of ground water imposes an impermissible burden on commerce; and (3) whether Congress has granted the States permission to engage in ground water regulation that otherwise would be impermissible. Sporhase, 458 U.S. at 944. Nebraska argued that water is not an article of commerce. It offered two reasons why. The first was that it owned its groundwater. See id. at 951. The second was that water is essential for life. See id. at 952. The Sporhase Court rejected the former on the ground that such ownership is merely a legal fiction. ld. at 951-52. For this finding, it relied principally on Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979). Sporhase, 458 U.S. at 951. Hughes addressed an Oklahoma law that prohibited the export of any natural 3 The complete statute reads as follows: Any person, firm, city, village, municipal corporation or any other entity intending to withdraw ground water from any well or pit located in the State of Nebraska and transport it for use in an adjoining state shall apply to the Department of Water Resources for a permit to do so. If the Director of Water Resources finds that the withdrawal of the ground water requested is reasonable, is not contrary to the conservation and use of ground water, and is not otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, he shall grant the permit if the state in which the water is to be used grants reciprocal rights to withdraw and transport ground water from that state for use in the State of Nebraska. Neb. Rev. Stat. 46-6]3.0] (1978). 5