Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Water Law

Constitutional Challenge to Nebraska's Groundwater Management Act Dismissed

L. Paul Goeringer
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Jacobson v. Bruning, No. 4:06cv3166, 2007 WL 1362638, at *1 (D. Neb. Apr. 24, 2007), the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska held that a constitutional challenge to a state groundwater act was barred by the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court found that no valid federal interest existed and the plaintiff had an available forum to challenge the law in state court.

Background

The Nebraska Unicameral passed the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act (Act) on April 12, 2006. Id. at *1. The Act amended the existing Ground Water Act and placed limits on a landowner's ability to use the groundwater beneath his land. Id. Plaintiff Jacobson brought suit seeking a declaratory judgment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that he had a "right to drill irrigation wells on [his] land." Id. at *2

Arguments

Jacobson argued that the legislation limited his use of the groundwater beneath his land. Jacobson further claimed that the legislation denied his "Constitutional right to use irrigation equipment and production equipment bought and paid for . . . [and] denied the Constitutional right to defend oneself against the raves of the unpredictable weather." Id. at *1. Finally, Jacobson claimed that the legislation was in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Id. at *4. The state of Nebraska argued that the action could not be brought in federal court because the state had not waved its sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Id. at *1. Jacobson claimed that the Ex parte Young doctrine allowed him to ask for injunctive relief against state officials, acting in their official capacity, even if the state was protected by the Eleventh Amendment. Id. at *2.

Analysis and Holdings

The district court found that the Ex parte Young doctrine, an exception to the sovereign immunity doctrine, did not apply in this case. Id. at *2. The Ex parte Young doctrine is meant to ensure that state officials do not use sovereign immunity to avoid complying with federal law. Id. In the instant case, nothing raised a question of avoidance of complying with federal law by the state's Attorney General. See id. The property rights that plaintiff claimed to be deprived of were the product of state law, and federal law conferred no rights on Jacobson. Id. *2-3. The Eleventh Amendment deprives federal courts of jurisdiction over actions to enjoin state officials from violations of state law or to conform their actions to state law. Id. at *4. Finding no interstate concern, the court found that the claimed violation did not discriminate against inhabitants of other states. Id. The concern raised by Jacobson was purely intrastate and a matter of property rights within the state's borders. Id. Citing precedent, the district court found that this issue should be left to the state courts. Id. at *5.

Finally, the court found that the state had a forum in which Jacobson could challenge the legislation. Id. The state had waived sovereign immunity under the Nebraska Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. Id. A similar action in state court challenging an invalid act or the authority of a state official would not violate the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Id. Jacobson would have a forum that had jurisdiction to hear his claim regarding the Act's validity. Id. at *6. Therefore, the district court granted the state's motion to dismiss. Id.

The case was decided on April 24, 2007.