Kansas Legislature
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.
Top ads RSS
- Warehouse & Office Assistant. Small warehouse in North Lawrence needs ...
- RETIREMENT COMMUNITY Pioneer Ridge Retirement Community is currently accepting applications ...
- Web/Usability Design Engineer This position is responsible for creating engaging, ...
- FOOD SERVICE • Food Service Worker Underground Mon - Fri ...
- Maintenance Director Full Time-Experience Required LPN/RN Full Time 2PM-10PM Apply ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- KDHE orders salvage yard to change practices February 9, 2010 · 4 comments
- Bill would allow big-cat hunting February 9, 2010 · 71 comments
- KU employee suspected of charging personal items on university credit card February 9, 2010 · 15 comments
- ‘Tea party’ is Palin’s people February 7, 2010 · 205 comments
- Kansas Legislature considers poverty waivers for those looking to get married, but unable to pay fees February 9, 2010 · 15 comments
- Proposed constitutional amendment to block federal health care reform considered February 9, 2010 · 27 comments
- Rep. John Murtha, Iraq war critic, dies at 77 February 9, 2010 · 89 comments
- KU uses stimulus funds to put 'dent' in deferred maintenance backlog February 9, 2010 · 4 comments
- Blog: Marion - Disappeareded 1-23-2010 January 23, 2010 · 806 comments
- The only choice February 9, 2010 · 49 comments
- Bill would allow big-cat hunting February 9, 2010
- Aldrich’s father gets to ‘live a dream’ — in Lawrence February 9, 2010
- Chancellor Gray-Little supports schools February 9, 2010
- Under her wing: Parent writes book on developmental disabilities February 8, 2010
- Henry gets physical for KU February 9, 2010
- HealthGrades releases list of hospitals with lower mortality, complication rates February 9, 2010
- Eudora man hospitalized after head-on crash into tree February 9, 2010
- Jayhawks knock off Longhorns to get first win in Austin under Bill Self February 9, 2010
- UT forward miffed February 9, 2010
- Gary Bedore’s KU basketball notebook February 9, 2010
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 2:58 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 3:42 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.