## Facts

- Joy Sporhase and Delmer Moss jointly owned contiguous farmland in Nebraska and Colorado.
- A single irrigation well located in Nebraska pumped groundwater that they used to irrigate land on both sides of the state line.
- Nebraska required a permit to withdraw groundwater from a Nebraska well and transport it for use in an adjoining state.
- The permit could be issued only if the withdrawal was (1) reasonable, (2) consistent with conservation and use of groundwater, (3) not detrimental to public welfare, and (4) the receiving state granted reciprocal rights for Nebraska users to withdraw and transport groundwater from that state.
- Sporhase and Moss transported water into Colorado without applying for a permit, arguing a permit would be denied due to the reciprocity requirement.

## Issues

1. Whether groundwater is an “article of commerce” subject to the Commerce Clause.
2. Whether Nebraska’s statutory reciprocity requirement for exporting groundwater violates the dormant Commerce Clause by imposing an impermissible burden on interstate commerce.
3. Whether the landowners could challenge the statute without applying for a permit when an application would have been futile.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court held that groundwater is an article of commerce subject to Commerce Clause constraints.
- The Court found the landowners had standing because applying for a permit would have been futile.
- The Court ruled that Nebraska’s conservation-oriented conditions (reasonableness, conservation, and public welfare) were not facially invalid under the Commerce Clause.
- The Court held the reciprocity requirement was unconstitutional because it operated as an explicit barrier to commerce between Nebraska and adjoining states.
- The Court reversed the Nebraska Supreme Court in part, invalidating the reciprocity provision.

## Legal Principles

- Natural resources, including groundwater, may constitute articles of commerce when their movement affects interstate economic activity.
- Under the dormant Commerce Clause, a state may not discriminate against or impose protectionist burdens on interstate commerce absent a legitimate local purpose that cannot be served by reasonable, non-discriminatory alternatives.
- A state’s asserted “ownership” of a natural resource does not remove the resource from Commerce Clause scrutiny; state ownership theories do not justify discriminatory restraints on interstate trade.
- Conservation and public welfare are legitimate state interests in water regulation, but they do not permit reciprocity-based barriers that condition access on another state’s policies.

## Conclusion

The Court treated groundwater transfers as interstate commerce and allowed Nebraska to pursue non-discriminatory conservation regulation, but struck down Nebraska’s reciprocity condition because it functioned as a protectionist barrier forbidden by the dormant Commerce Clause.


Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 (1982)