Prokop v. Lower Loup NRD

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a district court decision upholding, as modified, a Lower Loup Natural Resources District cease and desist order suspending Robert Prokop’s use of groundwater wells for failing to submit complete annual reports. The court held that the district had authority to require actual crop yield data and impose sanctions, and that the proceedings did not violate due process or constitute an uncompensated taking. The court also affirmed the district court’s reduction of the suspension from four years to one year, with possible additional suspension for continued noncompliance.

Holdings

1. The Lower Loup Natural Resources District had authority to require actual crop yield data as part of the annual reporting requirement because the phrase "other field operations" in its Phase III rule reasonably encompassed that information, and the District's interpretation was not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the rule.
2. The Lower Loup Natural Resources District had authority under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 46-746(1) to suspend Prokop's groundwater access for violating District reporting requirements; the statute did not require the District to restate that specific penalty in its rules.
3. The District provided Prokop constitutionally sufficient procedural due process because its notice reasonably informed him of the subject, alleged violations, factual basis, potential penalties, hearing, and opportunity to present evidence; due process did not require advance notice of the specific evidence or witnesses the District would present.
4. The suspension of Prokop's groundwater access was not a taking requiring compensation because it was an exercise of the State's police power to protect the public welfare from groundwater contamination.
5. The district court properly conducted de novo review on the agency record and had authority to modify the duration of the District's penalty; the modified one-year suspension with a possible three-year extension was lawful, supported by competent evidence, and not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Lower Loup Natural Resources District had authority under the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act and its rules to require actual crop yield data in annual groundwater reports.
2. Whether the District had authority to suspend groundwater access as a penalty for noncompliance with reporting requirements without expressly restating that penalty in its rules.
3. Whether the District provided constitutionally sufficient procedural due process, including adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.
4. Whether the District's proceedings deprived Prokop of the possibility of competent judicial review.
5. Whether suspension of Prokop's groundwater access constituted a taking without just compensation.
6. Whether the district court properly excluded extra-record exhibits and denied a remand or attorney fees.
7. Whether the district court properly modified the duration of the administrative penalty under de novo review.

Disposition

affirmed