Laserfiche WebLink
<br />G00853 <br /> <br />CHAPTER 1 <br />GROUNDWATER PROPERTY <br />RIGHTS IN NEBRASKA <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />This policy issue study is concerned with a very <br />narrow, but important issue in groundwater law, <br />namely the specification of property rights to the <br />groundwater resource,' The nature of a land. <br />owner's property interest in the water found <br />beneath his land has two major impacts, First, it <br />determines, in large measure, the power of the <br />state to regulate or restrict groundwater usage <br />without constitutional impediments, Under some <br />formulations of groundwater property rights <br />virtually any form of regulation would be con. <br />stitutionally suspect. Under alternative form' <br />ulations of groundwater property rights, con. <br />stitutional barriers to (and protection from) reg. <br />ulation would be virtually nonexistent. Secondly, <br />in those areas where no regulations exist (most <br />of the state at the time of this writing), the <br />landowner's property right in the groundwater <br />will be the primary factor governing his relation' <br />ship with other users of groundwater. For both <br />reasons a clear understanding of the nature and <br />extent of private property rights in groundwater is <br />the essential first step toward sound manage. <br />ment of the resource, <br />Nebraska indeed is fortunate to be in a position <br />to consider policy alternatives for the specifica- <br />tion of groundwater property rights, In most, if not <br />all, other states the nature of private property <br />rights to water is well settled and some states are <br />seriously constrained by the existence of vested <br />rights, As will become apparent during the course <br />of this chapter, private groundwater property <br />rights in Nebraska remain very flexible giving the <br />state an unprecedented opportunity to use, <br />manage, and conserve the resource wisely, <br />Groundwater property rights in Nebraska have <br />slowly evolved beginning with Olson v, Cily of <br />Wahoo2 and culminating with State v, Sporhase3 <br />and the enactment of LB 375 by the 1982 <br />Nebraska Legislature, Throughout this period, <br />groundwater property rights remained highly <br />conjectural. The most recent case, Sporhase, <br /> <br />resolved many previously unanswered questions <br />while raising many others, The slow development <br />of Nebraska groundwater law largely is explain' <br />ed by the relative abundance of groundwater in <br />the state, Abundant water supplies postpone <br />user conflicts that lead to the formation of judicial <br />precedents, Each of the limited judicial pre. <br />cedents defining groundwater property rights in <br />Nebraska is discussed below as are LB 375 and <br />other relevant Nebraska statutes, An attempt <br />then is made to pull them together in a way that <br />defines the Nebraska groundwater property <br />right. <br /> <br />ANALYSIS OF <br />NEBRASKA DECISIONS <br /> <br />1. Olson v, City of Wahoo4 (1933) <br /> <br />Olson, decided in 1933, contains the first pro' <br />nouncement of the Nebraska Supreme Court <br />directly addressing groundwater property rights, <br />Plaintiff Olson sued the City of Wahoo alleging <br />that a new city well had lowered the water level in <br />his gravel pit to the point where commercial <br />pumping of sand and gravel had become im' <br />practical. Wahoo argued that any reduction in the <br />water level was the result of extremely dry <br />weather conditions rather than a consequence <br />of the new well. The trial court held that, while <br />plaintiff proved that the water level in his pit had <br />been lowered, he failed to prove that the city's <br />pumping caused the decline, The supreme court <br />eventually affirmed the lower court decision, but <br />not until they had discussed two competing <br />theories of groundwater property rights, <br />Wahoo argued that the court should adopt the <br />English Rule of Absolute Ownership articulated <br />in Acton v, Blundell.5 Under the English Rule no <br />proprietary interest in groundwater exists until it <br />is reduced to capture, The rule thus is more <br />properly thought of as a rule of non-ownership <br />rather than a rule of absolute ownership, In any <br /> <br />1-1 <br />