WSP03064

• File Number: 8407.400
• Description: Platte River Basin - River Basin General Publications - Nebraska
• State: NE
• Basin: South Platte
• Water Division: 1
• Date: 1/1/1983
• Author: Nebraska Natural Res
• Title: Policy Issue Study on Selected Water Rights Issues - Property Rights in Groundwater
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

is merely free to take it has an important
equity impact, however, since in one case B
is compensated for his loss and in the other
he is not.
Although original plans were to treat envi-
ronmental impacts separately, strong inter-
relationships with the physical-hydrologic
impacts soon became apparent. The two
types of impact analyses, therefore, have
been combined in the discussions which
follow.
Legislative Bill 375, 87th Nebraska Legisla-
ture, 2nd Session (1982).
9. 124 Neb. 802, 248 N.W. 304 (1933).
10. 208 Neb. 703, 305 N.W.2d 614, rev'd, 50
U.S.L.W. 5115 (U.S. July 2, 1982).
11. Supra, note 8, 9 1.
12. 152 Eng. Rep. 1223 (Ex. 1843).
13. 5 POWELL, REAL PROPERTY 9 725 (1979).
14. See Harnsberger, Nebraska Groundwater
Problems, 42 NEB. L. REV. 721,745 (1963).
15. See Houston and Texas Central R.R. v. East,
98 Tex. 146, 81 S.Ct. 279 (1904).
16. See City of Corpus Christi v. City of
Pleasanton, 154 Tex. 289, 276 SW.2d 789
(1955).
17. See Friendswood Development Co. v. Smith-
Southwest Industries, Inc., 576 S.W.2d 21
(Tex. 1978).
18. 164 N.Y. 522, 58 N.E. 644 (1900).
19. Id. at 526, 58 N.E. at 645-46.
20. 104 Ariz. 527, 456 P.2d 385 (1969).
21. 106 Ariz. 506,479 P.2d 169 (1970).
22. 113 Ariz. 230, 550 P.2d 227 (1976).
23. See Farmer Investment Co. v. Bettwy, 113
Ariz. 520, 558 P.2d 14 (1976).
24. 141 Cal. 116, 74 Pac. 766 (1903).
25. Id. at 133,74 Pac. at 771.
26. 154 Cal. 428, 98 Pac. 260 (1908).
27. 33 Cal.2d 908, 207 P.2d 17 (1949).
28. 49 Cal. App. 3d 922,122 Cal. Rptr. 918, 537
P.2d 1250 (1975).
29. 14 Cal.3d 199,537 P.2d 1250, 123 Cal. Rptr.
1 (1975).
30. See, e.g., Jones v. Oz-Ark-Val Poultry Co.,
228 Ark. 76, 306 S.W.2d 111 (1957).
31. 63Wis. 2d 278, 217 N.W.2d 339, 219 NW.2d
308 (1974).
32. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS
9 858, Comment b.

7.

8.

33. See Lowe, Ruedisili, & Graham, Beyond
Section 853: A Proposed Groundwater
Liability and Management System forthe
Eastern United States, 8 Ecology L.a. 131
(1979).
34, Id. at 151.
35. See Lowe, Ruedisili, & Graham, supra note
32.
36. This alternative clearly would give preferred
users a right to have water levels or artesian
head maintained against the actions of less
preferred users. Current preference
statutes, in contrast, do not prescribe how
preferences are to be implemented. Limits
on their use to impose liability between
users is not presently known. See generally
discussion of Prather v. Eisenmann, supra
Chapter One, at 1-6 to 1-8.
37. See Lowe, Ruedisili, & Graham, supra note
32.
38. Id. at 153.
39. See, e.g., Village of Jequesta v. Jupiter
Inlet Corp., 371 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1979).
40. Nontributary groundwater refers to aquifers
that are not hydrologically linked to streams
or other surface waters.
41. See Fundingsland v. Colorado Groundwater
Commission, 171 Colo. 487, 468 P.2d 835
(1970).
42. See COLO. REV. STAT. 9 37-90-107.
43. See COLO. REV. STAT. 9 37-90-137.
44. See NEB. REV. STAT. 99 57-909 et seq.
(Reissue 1978).
45. See Okla. Stat. tit. 82, 99 1020.1-.22 (Cum.
Supp. 1980).
46. 14 Tulsa L. Rev. 437 (1979).
47. Id. at 460.
48. It is important to note that this alternative is
limited to specification of a groundwater
property right. It is not a restatement of
Nebraska groundwater law which would
include various regulatory measures such
as well spacing, preferences, and the
groundwater management act. The ground-
water property right describes the nature of
a landowner's proprietary interest in
groundwater, an interest that is subject to
varying amounts of state regulation.
49. Supra, note 8, 9 1.
50. Id.

3-20