The Water Report Nov 2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Issue #21 The Water Report Nebraska Contending Parties Court Order AG's Motion Denied necessary and indispensable parties. On those bases, the District Court in an Order dated June 10, 2003, dismissed the Complaint based on its findings that there was no reasonable possibility that the plaintiff could amend the Complaint to cure the defects. Increasing Trend in Zero -Flow Days on Pumpkin Creek 100 y 80 M D O V- 60 0 N 6 6 40 z c c a zo 0 3ti�°`363� a� otioA a6 a�' e° htih°` h6y�6o6tiba666w�o�ti ,�a�6,�ewowtiw°'w6ww90etia°`��e� Year Nebraska Department of Natural Resources streamflow records database, 2001 Supreme Court Consideration The case, being one of first impression, bypassed the Court of Appeals and was directly considered by the Nebraska Supreme Court. Spear T Ranch, as the Appellant, filed its expanded Brief in September of 2003. The Appellees (defendants) filed a Joint Brief in November and the Appellant Spear T Ranch filed its Reply in December. In addition, numerous entities filed Amicus Briefs. Briefs generally supporting the positions argued by the Appellees came from the Nebraska Groundwater Management Coalition, the Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation, and the Nebraska Attorney General's office. Entities submitting Briefs generally supportive of the position of the Appellant included the Nebraska State Irrigation Association, Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District, a joint Brief filed by the Farmers Irrigation District and other panhandle irrigators, and the Reban Corporation representing an irrigator downstream of Lake McConaughy. Oral argument was held on March 3, 2004 at the University of Nebraska College of Law before a large gathering of law students and interested persons. Subsequent to the oral argument, but before a decision was issued, the Appellees filed a Motion to permit further argument and additional briefing. The Motion was opposed by Spear T Ranch, but was granted by the Court in an Order dated April 21, 2004. In that Order, the Court asked for briefs and argument on four points. THE COURT ASKED THE PARTIES TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING: 1) The doctrine of primary jurisdiction 2) Primary jurisdiction in light of the Groundwater Management and Protection Act and the recent adoption of LB962 3) Any effect of the adoption of LB962 on the appeal 4) Whether the Nebraska Groundwater Management and Protection Act or LB962 abrogated any common law remedies that the Appellant had or if they provided an adequate remedy at law Additional briefs were provided by the Appellant and the Appellees as well as most of the Amici. Subsequent to the submittal of all of the briefs, the Nebraska Attorney General's office filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene as a defendant. This motion was opposed by some of the Appellees and the Appellant. The Court, on September 1, 2004, sustained the objections and denied the Attorney General's request for leave to intervene. The case was re- argued before the Court on September 8, 2004 and the Court issued its opinion dated January 21, 2005. 18 Copyright© 2005 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited.