Archive for Friday, June 26, 2009
State Supreme Court rules against Lawrence area landowners in water case
June 26, 2009
Advertisement
Topeka — A Kansas Supreme Court ruling on Friday affirms a water district’s right to get a temporary easement for test drilling for groundwater on an area farm.
The dispute pitted Gregory and Charlee Shipe against the Public Wholesale Water Supply District No. 25.
The water district filed a petition to condemn land on the Shipes’ farm between Lawrence and Eudora for a temporary easement to drill test wells for water.
The Shipes sought a court order to try to stop the eminent domain proceeding.
The water district says the Shipes can’t fight its efforts because they don’t own the water nor the water rights that the district was trying to test.
The Shipes argued under Kansas water law, the district can’t condemn land to get a water right.
But the Supreme Court said the Shipes’ fight was premature because the water district hasn’t decided yet whether it would seek permanent access to the property and water.
More like this
- Court: Water case may not be ripe for review 2 comments / January 28, 2009
- Justices question whether water case is ripe for review 2 comments / January 27, 2009
- Farmers dispute district's right to pump groundwater out of area 14 comments / June 14, 2008
- Battle over groundwater could reach new depths 15 comments / July 22, 2008
- Legislature wades into water dispute 1 comment / February 27, 2008
Top ads RSS
- $260 million in state budget cuts will lead to state employee furloughs, less funding for highway maintenance, schools November 23, 2009 · 35 comments
- In tight times, donors should give wisely November 24, 2009 · 1 comment
- Self proves point by elevating Morningstar in practice November 24, 2009 · 4 comments
- U.S. justice November 24, 2009 · 4 comments
- Which lives aren’t worth saving? November 23, 2009 · 4 comments
- Checks and balances curb corruption November 24, 2009 · 1 comment
- Blog: Winter Weather Poses Special Challenges For Pet Owners November 23, 2009 · 2 comments
- Hawaii site tracks climate change November 24, 2009 · 1 comment
- On the street: Are you more concerned about your personal safety during the holiday season? November 24, 2009 · 9 comments
- Blog: Oprah And Palin - Role Swapping? November 23, 2009 · 24 comments
- Former coach Fambrough still spirited November 24, 2009
- $260 million in state budget cuts will lead to state employee furloughs, less funding for highway maintenance, schools November 23, 2009
- Former colleagues come to KU coach Mangino’s defense November 24, 2009
- Police encourage Lawrence residents to focus on safety during holidays November 23, 2009
- Self proves point by elevating Morningstar in practice November 24, 2009
- Shining seas November 23, 2009
- Last resort November 23, 2009
- Man-O-Pause: Biological changes with aging strike men as well November 22, 2009
- UGa president floats playoff proposal January 9, 2008
- New Macy’s Parade route means no cutting corners November 24, 2009
26 June 2009
at 11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansasmutt (Anonymous) says…
I say if the water district wants to get water, let them buy land and drill on the land they own. How dare they just want to go onto a persons land and drill holes.That is BS in my book.I dont see this case ever being ok,d to allow them to just enter a persons land and start drilling holes.If they want to buy the water rights from the landowner, then let them buy them for a fair price and drill.
26 June 2009
at 12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
This is total BS!
26 June 2009
at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Machiavelli_mania (Anonymous) says…
This issue could get really scary very fast. I think that the water district better back off and find a better way to address this issue. This is not! something one would want to follow thru upon. This is bad, bad stuff!!!
26 June 2009
at 12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bd (Anonymous) says…
The whole story is that the City of Lawrence has purchased “ALL” of the water rights from Clinton even though they will not need them for many years to come, thus forcing the outlying water districts to hunt for water for their customers!
Wholesale water district 25 is a joint venture of three rural water districts that surround Clinton that are being blackmailed into buying overpriced water from Lawrence or installing wells along the river???
Heck, they tried to obtain water rights from the old Farmland plant but the City put a stop to that also!
Kinda between a rock and a hard place!
26 June 2009
at 1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gl0ck0wn3r (Anonymous) says…
No property rights for you!
26 June 2009
at 1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Keith (Anonymous) says…
It's Obama's fault! There, thought I'd save nancy boy some typing.
26 June 2009
at 1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Machiavelli_mania (Anonymous) says…
While I would blame it on Miller and the Ridiculous Religious Rite.
26 June 2009
at 2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Yet another inroad on property rights.
We are headed towards a society in which there simply are no private property rights and some people's president is encouraging it all the way.
Spreading the wealth around through theft.
26 June 2009
at 2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
Don't worry about it Marion. You will be dead from swine flu long before.
26 June 2009
at 3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justthefacts (Anonymous) says…
If you want to read the case for yourselves…… link here:
http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opi…
Here is what the court said:
We conclude that the landowners have standing to object to a temporary easement on their property, although they do not have standing to object to the condemnation of water rights which they do not possess. Nevertheless, the question of whether a water district can condemn water rights or property for the purpose of providing permanent access to a point of diversion for the use of water rights is not ripe for decision in this case because: (a) The landowners in this action do not hold the water rights, (b) the current eminent domain proceeding does not seek a permanent easement for a point of diversion, (c) it is not known if the water district will ever seek to condemn the property for the purpose of obtaining legal access to a point of diversion, or (d) if in the future the water district seeks a permanent easement for a point of diversion, it is not known if the current landowners will still possess an interest in the land or if a purchase could be successfully negotiated. We, therefore, affirm the district court's order of dismissal.
26 June 2009
at 3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justthefacts (Anonymous) says…
The Kansas Water Rights Act was enacted in 1945 (not exactly a new law). And the concept of eminent domain is as old as this country and older. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_…
26 June 2009
at 3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Found this and what a crock!
The poor folks do not own the water rights and are therefore subject to having their land stolen by government!
http://www.ksda.gov/appropriation/con…
“Why Do I Need a Water Right?
Water, like other natural resources enjoyed so bountifully by Kansans, is protected for the use and benefit of the citizens of this state. Water should be used wisely and good conservation measures should be practiced by all water users.
The Kansas Water Appropriation Act protects both the people's right to use Kansas water and the state's supplies of groundwater and surface water for the future.
The law is administered by the Kansas Department of Agriculture's Division of Water Resources, which issues permits to appropriate water, regulates usage, and keeps records of all water rights in the state.
It is illegal for individuals in Kansas to use water without holding a vested right or applying for, and receiving a permit to appropriate water from the Division of Water Resources.
The exception is water used solely for domestic purposes - that is, water primarily used for the household, watering livestock on pasture, or watering up to two acres of lawn and gardens. No permit is needed for that class of water usage.
The Water Appropriation Act affects all Kansans. If you are a farmer who uses irrigation to grow crops, it requires you to obtain a permit and to make yearly reports of the water you use. If you are a city dweller who drinks, washes with, or cavorts in, city water, you likely are able to do so because your municipality has a water right or rights.
The right to use Kansas water is based on the principle of “first in time - first in right.” In times of shortage, that means the earliest water right or permit holders have first rights to use the water. The maintenance of water right and permit records allows Kansas water to be apportioned fairly.
… the Water Appropriation Act is Kansas law. Violating it can subject you to a maximum of six months in jail and a $500 fine.
Why is it so important to follow proper procedures to obtain a water right and report use of water? One reason is to protect the investment in your right to divert water for beneficial use on your farm for irrigation, a feedlot, recreational reservoir, or in your municipality, water supply district, or industry. Another reason is to protect Kansas water resources for tomorrow and future generations. Finally, you should remember that the Water Appropriation Act is Kansas law. Violating that law can subject you to a maximum of six months in jail and a $500 fine.”
26 June 2009
at 3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Machiavelli_mania (Anonymous) says…
Typical Ridiculous, Ransacking Religious Rite Rip-off artists….
26 June 2009
at 4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
I agree with justthefacts. This is an old law and eminent domain is the right of the sovereign. No one wants their land taken by eminent domain, but when it is taken for a public purpose and fairly compensated, the state has the right (which can be delegated).
Also, if you sell underground rights, such as mineral rights, the holder of the right also has the authority to extract the resource (otherwise what would be the point). While this landowner didn’t sell his water rights, he never had them, if the water is to be condemned then the right of extraction comes with it.
26 June 2009
at 7:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…
Come on people, we were never free to begin with. The government has all the say so and we just try to hang on to what little we have left. Real freedom is more of a dream and property rights, will you work your whole life and really all your doing is maintaining it for the government when your heirs have to sell it to pay the death tax which the thieves in Washington use to re-distribute wealth.