Local irrigators file class-action lawsuit

Friday, August 1, 2014

OMAHA, Neb. -- Four southwest Nebraska irrigators filed a class-action lawsuit against the State of Nebraska and the Department of Natural Resources for damages to their 2013, crops. Greg Hill of Furnas County, Brent Coffey of Harlan County, James Uerling of Red Willow County, and Warren Schaffert of Hitchcock County, filed the case in Furnas County District Court on July 31st.

Read the text of the lawsuit here.

The suit is filed on behalf of the four named farmers and a group of persons similarly situated, all of whom are water users of Frenchman Cambridge Irrigation District who have consented to be members of the Class.

The 19 page Complaint asserts that the irrigators each have a right to use water taken from them, and that those rights are superior to the rights of the State to take water for the purpose of passing it to Kansas to comply with the State's Republican River Compact obligations.

The irrigators contend their crops were damaged because they were denied by state action water that otherwise would have reached them through FCID canals and ditches in 2013. Damaged crops identified in the complaint include corn, soybeans, wheat and alfalfa.

The Complaint alleges that each irrigator in the Class was entitled to receive 18 acre inches of water from FCID. It contends the farmers were denied the water because the State caused it to bypass in the flow locations to reclamation dams and canals required to supply water to FCID and, in turn, get water to the farmers.

The suit does not contend the state lacked authority to divert the water. Instead, it claims the State must pay for the crop losses caused when water was diverted because the State decided to take this action.

Trial by jury is requested.

Comments
View 11 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • The water fight continues despite what the three NRDs say they have done to solve the problems. The fox is watching the hen house and protecting their own chickens.

    -- Posted by dennis on Fri, Aug 1, 2014, at 3:35 PM
  • *

    "The suit does not contend the state lacked authority to divert the water. Instead, it claims the State must pay for the crop losses caused when water was diverted because the State decided to take this action."

    You can bet your bottom dollar every last one of these farmers has come pout strongly, vociferously, and probably with some donations to attack the government programs aiding anyone else as being if not unconstitutional, then unconscionable.

    Gotta love farmers sometimes, they do not see the governments subsidies to them as welfare.

    -- Posted by didereaux on Fri, Aug 1, 2014, at 8:52 PM
  • -- Posted by president obama on Sat, Aug 2, 2014, at 5:37 AM
  • -- Posted by president obama on Sat, Aug 2, 2014, at 5:41 AM
  • I have to wonder why we even list farmers income from our government to help keep food prices lower and food on store shelves but I cant punch up these idiots names who post them on regularly on how many food stamps, unemployment benefits ,welfare payments, rent subsidy, free cheese, school lunch program subsidy , provided salvation army shopping at huge discount all which all us tax payers subsidize 10 times or more than what farmers receive mostly in crop failures to keep them around the next year.

    I have not received any government check in 25 plus years since I quit farming so forget looking for me . I think if its fair to list farmers income lets list everything in county at all levels city, county, nationally who gets taxpayers help and to really see who is sucking the life out of our country and sitting on a computer with his mouth full??? Fair is Fair right.....show me the government money flow to all who receive assistance period not just farmers......

    -- Posted by Corn Whisperer on Sun, Aug 3, 2014, at 3:56 PM
  • Hey president obama, how come you only posted links to the value of subsidies received by the farmers on the lawsuit but not links to how much these guys pay in property and income tax? Are you suggesting that it should be legal for the state to seize private property without compensation as long as the victims are getting bread crumbs from the federal government in comparison to what they pay out in tax to the state and fed? while we are on a kick of posting links, here is one for you:

    http://www.nebraskataxesonline.us/results.aspx?qr4pXlGoFJ38SWc/L18jqpyr5wpjanxDL...

    These values don't include the "occupation tax" an added $10 per irrigated acre taxed separately exclusively for the NRD to spend. A tax that can only be suspended when the farmer "proves" to the NRD that the NRD confiscated all of their irrigation surface water and that the farmer can no longer irrigate. A tax that is the same whether you are from the upper Republican NRD and can pump an average of 3 ft per acre per year or if you get surface water averaging 0.125 ft per acre per year as a result of seizure. So I guess your message is that it is ok for the state to seize property rights without compensation as long as the fed government subsidies are coming in around 25% value of your property/occupation tax paid to the state.

    Well president obama, all I can say is that when you establish a legal precedent, very very soon will it reach back to you.

    -- Posted by shallal on Mon, Aug 4, 2014, at 4:12 PM
  • Check the subsidies of the folks on the NRD boards and legislature that makes the local rules. Like I have said before, the fox is running the henhouse. That said, I believe ag producers deserve some type of subsidies.

    -- Posted by dennis on Tue, Aug 5, 2014, at 7:18 AM
  • Something needed to be done to combat the flagrant abuse of power that is robbing this area of its income. A pat on the back for these people who had enough courage to stand up against the injustices in the water seizures that Kansas has foist upon us. I am not saying that some restrictions are not needed. What I am saying is that Kansas held us over an open barbeque pit of an outdated agreement that they would not reconsider. The compact was written in a time that there was no water control measures at all. The water control/conservation measures that have occurred since the signing of the compact are as follows: 1. Pasture dams (paid for by federal cost share) 2. Terraces (paid for by federal cost share) 3. Bench farming (paid for by federal cost share) 4. Tree plantings (paid for by federal cost share) 5. Pasture pits (paid for by federal cost share) 6. Pivot irrigation (paid by the farmer to lower his pumping cost and increase his efficiency) 7. Conservation Tillage (by the farmer to hold the vital rainfall on his land) 8. Eco-fallow or no-till farming with chemicals (by the farmer to reduce water evaporation of and use of water by non-productive plants (again by farmer to increase his efficiency). 9 LEPA (Low Energy Precise Application) and (Drip irrigation) irrigation technology. (Again by the farmer to again increase the efficiency of his operation). None of this was even thought of when the compact was written. But we still have to abide by the rules thereof. Kansas knows that they have all the cards and who wouldn't want to play the game out if you knew you had the winning hand? Yes we must conserve. But there needs to be an overriding authority to manage all three states that are in the basin. And the amount allocated needs to be in accordance with the amount of average rainfall that the particular area of the basin receives.

    -- Posted by quick13 on Tue, Aug 5, 2014, at 1:10 PM
  • Great points quickie. I agree

    -- Posted by dennis on Tue, Aug 5, 2014, at 1:49 PM
  • On the subject of government subsidies; a great deal of the time it allows the farmer if he is having a bad year to pay his property taxes, local sales taxes, hire local help, etal. When those government subsidies are spent locally (as they are are 90% of the time) it invigorates the local economy. I heard once that a dollar spent locally will pass through seven hands before it leaves the community. You ALL need to think about that when you are throwing stones at the glass house you are living in. Our rural economy is not as robust as some think.

    -- Posted by quick13 on Wed, Aug 6, 2014, at 9:45 AM
  • I just posted the links. Ask the people who own the website.

    -- Posted by president obama on Sun, Aug 10, 2014, at 4:16 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: