WSP06827 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

lative Bill 375 by the Nebraska Legislature. That bill provides in part as follows: "Every landowner shall be entitled to a reason- able and beneficial use of the groundwater underlying his or her land, subject to the pro- visions of Chapter 46, article 6, and the cor- relative rights of other landowners when the groundwater supply is insufficient for all water uses." Although it may be impossible to completely reconcile public and private property rights dis- cussed in the court cases and the recently enacted statute, the following points seem well established, at least for those areas where no public management has been implemented. 1. Groundwater in Nebraska is public property. 2. Absent public authorization, a landowner can withdraw only that amount of water which he can put to reasonable and beneficial use on the overlying land that he owns. 3. If aquifer supplies are insufficient to meet the reasonable and beneficial needs of all overlying owners, groundwater supplies will be apportioned among the overlying owners. 4. Supplies of groundwater in excess of those necessarytosatisfythe reasonable and beneficial uses of overlying owners may, with (and only with) public consent, be transferred away from the overlying lands without any overlying landowners suffering a compensable injury. 5. Among members of the same preference class, overlying owners have no right to maintenance of a particular water table or artesian head. 6. Among members of different preference classes, preferred users are protected from unreasonable reductions in the water table or unreasonable reductions in artesian head caused by the actions of less-preferred users. 7. Use of groundwater actually in place for subirrigation of crops is a reasonable and beneficial use of groundwater. One conclusion to be drawn from current law is that private groundwater property rights are not secure. In fact, a landowner's groundwater right may be no more than a license, revocable at the will of the state. At best, landowners can argue that they have a right to the same treatment as other landowners and a right to be free of arbi- trary exercise of the state's power to restrict groundwater use. Any greater private rights arguably would be inconsistent with the con- clusion that groundwater is publicly owned. A second conclusion that might be inferred is VI that groundwater in Nebraska may be subject to a trust that runs to the benefit of the public. Although by no means clearly established, it can be argued persuasively that the Nebraska Rule of Reasonable Use establishes the parameters of this trust and that the legislature is constrain- ed by this trust obligation in managing and dis- posing of the publicly owned stock of ground- water. NEED TO EXAMiNE POLICY ALTERNATIVES The unique interaction of private and public groundwater property rights in Nebraska is the source of much uncertainty. Private landowners, in particular, have only limited legal assurance that present pumping rights are secure or that future rights might not be severely limited. With uncertain property rights, the reasonable expect- ations of landowners may be defeated making wise investment decisions extremely difficult. Moreover, the limits, if any, on the power of the legislature to allocate groundwater supplies and control groundwater use have not been esta- blished conclusively. As a consequence of this uncertainty, neither the general public nor private landowners can plan for the future with- out fear that subsequent litigation, or legislation as the case may be, might destroy the basis of their planning. On the other hand, the uncertainty that makes planning and management difficult is also a source of strength and opportunity. At present, it is unlikely that any state in the union is in a better position to implement flexible policies for wise groundwater use. Constitutional difficulties that would deter certain management strategies in many states probably are not present in Nebraska where groundwater is public property. To the extent that the state acts to define or clarify groundwater property rights, much of this flexibility could be sacrificed. The main body of this report develops and analyzes the impacts of thirteen policy alterna- tives concerned with the specification of ground- water property rights. No property rights system is ideal in all circumstances and, where possible, an attempt has been made to illustrate the limita- tions of particular systems with concrete examples. Each of these alternatives embodies poliCY assumptions as to how rapidly the ground- water resource should be used, who should reap the direct economic benefits of groundwater use, and what are the limits of state power to regulate groundwater use and/or the duty of the state to manage groundwater supplies. Most, although not all, of the policy alternatives would permit a