Klopman, Susan P.

English

University of Denver

Water Law Review Volume 4 Issue 2 Article 45 1-1-2001 Hagan v. Upper Republican Nat'l Res. Dist., 622 N.W.2d 627 (Neb. 2001) Susan P. Klopman Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/wlr Custom Citation Susan P. Klopman, Court Report, Hagan v. Upper Republican Nat'l Res. Dist., 622 N.W.2d 627 (Neb. 2001), 4 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 506 (2001). This Court Report is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. WATER LAW REVIEWof avulsion is to mitigate the hardship of a change in title resultingfrom a sudden movement of a river.The court noted this case involved a novel fact situation in whichsome facts illustrated accretion and other facts illustrated avulsion.The court found it important that the new main channel formed veryrapidly after the peninsula was cut off and that the disputed landexisted in the same form before and after the change in the course ofthe river. The court noted that in circumstances such as this, bothfederal and state case law recognize an exception to the generalizeddefinitions of accretion. This exception is analogous to the "islandrule" in which a boundary once established on one side of the islandby a river channel remains at its original position even though themain channel shifts to the other side of the island. Ultimately, thecourt concluded the Bouie River changed its position relative to thedisputed land by an act of avulsion. Therefore, title to the disputedland remained with Cox and the court remanded the case for anadjudication of Prestress' claim of adverse possession.Vanessa L. CondraNEBRASKAHagan v. Upper Republican Nat'l Res. Dist., 622 N.W.2d 627 (Neb.2001) (holding landowners and irrigators had standing to challengesettlement agreement between defendant hog farmer and the UpperRepublican Natural Resources District because the agreement gavedefendant access to water from the same aquifer underlying plaintiffs'lands).During the time period relevant to this action, the UpperRepublican Natural Resources District ("District") adopted amoratorium on new well construction. The plaintiff irrigators andlandowners (collectively, the "Irrigators") applied for a variance to useunderground water for crop irrigation. The defendant hog farmerapplied for a variance to use underground water to operate its "hogconfinement facilities." Both variance applications requestedunderground water from the same aquifer. The District denied theIrrigators' variance, but agreed to a settlement that gave the hogfarmer use of underground water as applied for originally.Irrigators filed a petition for declaratory relief asking that thesettlement agreement between the District and the hog farmer bedeclared ultra vires. The district court denied the petition, and foundthe Irrigators had no standing to bring the claim because they couldallege no injury different than that shared by the general public. Theappeals court reversed, and the hog farmer appealed to the NebraskaSupreme Court.The court acknowledged that while the public owns groundwater,Volume 4COURT REPORTSthe overlying landowner has a right to use that groundwater. Thecourt found the Irrigators' allegations of injury from aquifer depletionstated a cause of action. As overlying landowners, the Irrigators'allegations were sufficient to give them some legal or equitable right,title, or interest in the subject of the controversy. In addition, theirpetition alleged direct injury as a result of the settlement agreement,and not merely a general interest common to all members of thepublic. Therefore, the court held the Irrigators' had standing to bringtheir suit and directed the district court to reinstate the petition.Susan P. KlopmanNEVADATurnipseed v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation Dist., 13 P.3d 395 (Nev.2000) (holding the ThirdJudicial District Court erred in refusing apreemptive challenge to change both the presiding judge and thevenue because it improperly interpreted applicable judicial rules andstatutory law).This case involved numerous applications to appropriate waterfrom the Truckee River in Churchill County, Nevada. Among theapplicants were the two parties present in this case, the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District ("District") and the Pyramid Lake PaiuteTribe of Indians ("Tribe"). The Tribe brought this action, requestingthe Nevada Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering theThird Judicial District Court to grant a preemptive challenge asauthorized under applicable judicial rules. Additionally, the NevadaState Engineer, R. Micheal Turnipseed, ("State Engineer") petitionedthe supreme court to reverse the district court's denial of his motion tochange the venue.On May 31, 1994, the State Engineer held a hearing to determinewhether to grant various water applications to appropriate water fromthe Truckee River. As part of this hearing, the State Engineerconsidered a motion from Corkhill Bros., Inc., ("Corkhill") tointervene in the proceedings as an interested party. The StateEngineer denied both the Corkhill's intervention motion and theDistrict's applications to appropriate water from the Truckee River.Subsequent to the decision, the District and Corkhill filed separatepetitions with the district court, challenging the State Engineer'sdecisions and requesting the district court stay the State Engineer'sactions. The district court consolidated the cases (upon motion fromthe State Engineer) and granted both petitions, remanding theDistrict's application to the State Engineer for further review.On November 24, 1998, the State Engineer issued a final orderdenying all but the Tribe's applications to appropriate water from theTruckee River. Since the District's applications were a part of theIssue 2

Hagan v. Upper Republican Nat\u27l Res. Dist., 622 N.W.2d 627 (Neb. 2001)

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2809&amp;context=wlr

Hagan v. Upper Republican Nat\u27l Res. Dist., 622 N.W.2d 627 (Neb. 2001)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver