## Facts

- Nebraska’s Director of Water Resources designated the relevant area a groundwater control area after finding the underground supply insufficient without regulation.
- The Upper Republican Natural Resources District (URNRD) adopted a uniform groundwater allocation limiting withdrawals to a 75-acre-inch, five-year amount for regulated wells.
- Plaintiffs were landowners/farm operators using nine wells with center-pivot irrigation systems subject to the allocation.
- By 1992, plaintiffs had exhausted their allocations, and URNRD issued a cease and desist order barring further pumping until additional allocation was granted.
- Plaintiffs filed (1) an administrative review petition under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917 challenging the cease and desist order and (2) a separate injunction action to prevent enforcement.
- URNRD counterclaimed for an injunction to restrain any pumping from the wells until new allocations issued.
- Plaintiffs attempted to present evidence that groundwater supplies were sufficient and argued the allocation and enforcement constituted unconstitutional takings and violated other constitutional protections.

## Issues

1. Whether the challenges to the cease and desist order and injunctive relief were moot, and if so, whether the public interest exception permitted review.
2. Whether landowners were entitled to allocations exceeding the uniform 75-acre-inch, five-year allocation or could disregard the enforcement order based on alleged supply sufficiency.
3. Whether the groundwater control-area statutory scheme and URNRD’s allocation/enforcement authority were unconstitutional (including vagueness, improper delegation, due process violations, or a compensable taking).

## Decision

- The court reached the merits under the public interest exception to mootness due to the recurring and public nature of groundwater allocation disputes.
- The court held plaintiffs were not entitled to greater allocations than the uniform amount and that URNRD properly issued the cease and desist order to enforce existing allocation limits.
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ attempt to use review of the enforcement order to mount an untimely challenge to the previously adopted allocation order.
- The court rejected constitutional challenges, holding the statutes and URNRD’s actions were not unconstitutionally vague, were not an improper delegation, and did not effect a compensable taking.
- The court affirmed: (1) denial of plaintiffs’ requested injunction, (2) grant of URNRD’s injunction, and (3) dismissal of the § 84-917 petition upholding the cease and desist order.

## Legal Principles

- Injunctions are generally preventative; equity typically will not issue an injunction when the complained-of act has already occurred and injury is complete.
- Appellate courts may decide otherwise moot issues under a public interest exception considering: (1) whether the question is public or private, (2) the value of authoritative guidance for public officials, and (3) likelihood of recurrence.
- A landowner may appropriate subterranean water under the land, but when supply is insufficient for all owners, each is entitled only to a reasonable proportion of the whole.
- Statutes are presumed constitutional; the challenger bears the burden to clearly establish unconstitutionality, and courts construe statutes to avoid constitutional conflict when reasonably possible.
- A law is not void for vagueness if it provides adequate notice of required conduct and adequate standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement.
- Delegation to an administrative body is permissible when the Legislature supplies reasonable, definite standards limiting discretion.
- A groundwater allocation and pumping restriction is not a compensable taking absent proof of deprivation of all economically viable use; conservation regulation may be a valid exercise of police power.

## Conclusion

The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld URNRD’s uniform groundwater allocation and cease and desist enforcement, applied the public interest exception to address recurring groundwater-control disputes, and rejected untimely collateral attacks and constitutional claims, including takings, vagueness, and improper delegation.


Bamford v. Upper Republican Nat. Res. Dist., 245 Neb. 299, 512 N.W.2d 642 (1994)