Nebraska Supreme Court Voids Forfeiture of Irrigation Rights that Lacked Proper Notice

State ex rel. Seeman v. Lower Republican NRD, 319 Neb. 681 (2025)

Steve Seeman and SBS Farms, Inc. own land in Harlan County, Nebraska.  The Lower Republican Natural Resources District (“LRNRD”) regulates groundwater use on their parcels.

In August 2016, LRNRD discovered a tampering device on a well.  The tampering device undercounted the amount of pumped water.  Gerald Schluntz had installed the device, but he passed away before LRNRD took action. 

LRNRD issued a notice of intent to enforce a forfeiture of all irrigation rights for the 1,107.5 acres that relied on the well.  LRNRD published the notice in a newspaper.  It also mailed the notice to Schluntz, but not to SBS Farms, which owned two of the eight parcels at issue.

SBS Farms and Seeman (who acquired Schluntz’s land after the notice) sought mandamus relief to block forfeiture of their irrigation rights.  The district court voided the forfeiture orders as to both Seeman and SBS Farms due to a lack of proper notice.  LRNRD appealed. 

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed in favor of SBS Farms, but reversed against Seeman.  The court held LRNRD never acquired jurisdiction over SBS Farms due to lack of notice.  “Where a corporation owns real estate having certified irrigated acres under the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act, due process requires that the corporation be served with notice reasonably calculated to inform it of the subject and issues involved in the proceeding.”

SBS Farms was a landowner throughout LRNRD’s forfeiture proceedings.  Thus, LRNRD needed to notify SBS Farms specifically.  It did not suffice that LRNRD had notified Schluntz at the same address. 

Without proper notice, LRNRD’s forfeiture order was void.  The court affirmed judgment for SBS Farms, including the trial court’s award of almost $20,000 in attorney fees.

The peremptory mandamus relief for SBS Farms allows for discretionary attorney fees.  Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2165.  The court found no abuse of discretion in the award of almost $20,000 from the trial court, and thus no reason to deny SBS Farms.

By contrast, Seeman was not a landowner during the forfeiture proceedings.  He gained title to Schluntz’s parcels afterward.  Thus, when Seeman acquired title to the parcels, the forfeiture of the irrigation rights was already in place.  The court held LRNRD did not need to notify Seeman.  Thus, the forfeiture stood as to his land.

Attorneys at Baird Holm specialize in various subject matter areas including municipal, administrative, water and land use law.  Please contact us with any questions.

Hannes D. Zetzsche
Samuel Heffron, Summer Associate