Central Platte Natural Resources District v. Wyoming
Nebraska Supreme Court
513 N.W.2d 847 (1994)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
The Central Platte Natural Resources District (CPNRD) (plaintiff) applied to appropriate water rights to instream flows in the Platte River in Nebraska to preserve bird habitat. Wyoming (defendant) also owned land on the river that it wanted to use for bird habitat and opposed the applications, claiming CPNRD sought more water than available. CPNRD’s expert testified about historic flow levels for the previous 30 years. Wyoming’s experts countered that the historic flows should be reduced by all existing appropriated water rights using the full-rights method and that future groundwater depletions would reduce river flows. The Nebraska Department of Water Resources (NDWR) director accepted the historic-flow method and found no pending senior applications would deplete existing flows, even though two other senior applications were pending. One was later denied, and CPNRD had filed the other and a manager testified it would waive its senior rights to satisfy the instream flows. The director partially granted CPNRD’s applications and Wyoming appealed, arguing the director applied the wrong method and gave CPNRD more rights than water available. After the appellate court affirmed, the Nebraska Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.