WSP06827 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

suggests that a landowner's proprietary interest in groundwater is limited to the amount which can be put to reasonable and beneficial use on the overlying land. The language of Olson and Luchsinger suggests that groundwater supplies can be apportioned when supplies are insuffi- cient to meet all needs. The issue is complicated by the existence of Nebraska's groundwater preference statute which places agricultural uses above industrial uses.19 What constitutes a reasonable and beneficial use on the overlying land? Presurnably the definition and limitation of such terms would be within the power of the legislature as the following language from the dissent suggests: "The water rights here at- tempted to be condemned will be owned, main- tained, and operated by the municipality. The state has declared water to be a public use and its control is entirely in the hands of the legislature,,20 (emphasis added). This language suggests a very flexible approach to ground- water property rights, at least by a portion of the court in 1967. 5. Prather v. Eisemann21 (1978) Prather was an action brought by plaintiff domestic well owners to enjoin pumping by defendant irrigators. Plaintiff alleged that de- fendant's pumping caused a loss of artesian pressure in their wells, thereby interfering with their domestic consumption. The court held the irrigator liable for the costs of replacing the domestic users' wells. Although the case was decided on an interpretation of Nebraska's groundwater preference statute (arguably an in- correct interpretation since the court failed to distinguish between rights to the groundwater itself and rights to the means of diversion), the court took the opportunity to extensively review the Nebraska law of groundwater rights. The court began by reiterating the Nebraska Rule of Reasonable Use first announced in Olson and approved in Luchsinger. The court stressed that omission of the "sharing" language in Metropolitan Utilities was not significant since proportional use was not at issue in that case. Consequently," Nebraska, in Olson, adopted the rule of reasonable use with the addition of the California doctrine of apportionment in time of shortage."22 Plaintiffs argued that runoff from defendant's lands indicated that water in excess of a reason- able and beneficial use was being applied. The court did not reach the issue of how a reasonable and beneficial use on overlying land was to be determined although it did discuss the meaning of reasonable use under three competing doctrines, the American, California, and Restate- 1-4 ment Rules. According to the court, reasonable use is defined in relation to the appropriator's land in American Rule jurisdictions, is defined as a reasonable share of the whole in correlative rights jurisdictions, and is defined by balancing the equities among competing users in Restate- ment jurisdictions. By implication, reasonable use under the Nebraska Rule would seem to be a reasonable share of the whole not to exceed what can be reasonably and beneficially applied to the appropriator's lands. The court speaks of this as an "equal right to a fair share" of the underground water.23 The "equal right to a fair share" applies only among users of the same preference class, how- ever. When competing uses in different pre- ference classes are involved, the court favors the preferred use although its reasoning is far from clear. Onthe one hand, the court may be saying that the preference statute entitles preferred users to a property right in water tables and artesian head undiminished by the pumping operations of less preferred users. Although such a conclusion would be consistent with the court's holding in Prather, it is possible that the court intended to create a property right in the "reasonable maintenance of water levels and artesian head" with reasonable derived from the rule of nonliability for use of groundwater enunciated in RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS.24 The court quotes from an earlier draft of what is now RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 9856(1 )(a). This section provides for liability if a withdrawal of groundwater "unreasonably" causes harm to a proprietor of neighboring land through lowering the water table or reducing artesian pressure. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 9850A provides that determining "reasonableness" involves a consideration of many factors including: a) the purpose of use b) the suitability of use c) the economic value of use d) the social value of use e) the extent and amount of harm caused f) the practicality of avoiding the harm by adjusting the use or method of use of one proprietor or the other g) the practicality of adjusting th~ quantity of water used by each proprietor h) the protection of existing values of water uses, land, investments and enterprises, and i) the justice of requiring the user causing harm to bear the loss.