Opinion ID: 1836722
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Department's Finding

Text: The Boses argue that the Department's finding that the land subject to water appropriation A-4924 had not been irrigated from the Republican River for more than 3 consecutive years is not supported by competent and relevant evidence and is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. [2-4] In an appeal from the Department, an appellate court's review of the director's factual determinations is limited to deciding whether such determinations are supported by competent and relevant evidence and are not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. City of Lincoln v. Central Platte NRD, 263 Neb. 141, 638 N.W.2d 839 (2002). A decision is arbitrary when it is made in disregard of the facts or circumstances and without some basis which would lead a reasonable person to the same conclusion. Bethesda Found. v. Buffalo Cty. Bd. of Equal., 263 Neb. 454, 640 N.W.2d 398 (2002). A capricious decision is one guided by fancy rather than by judgment or settled purpose. In re Application of Neb. Pub. Serv. Comm., 260 Neb. 780, 619 N.W.2d 809 (2000). The term unreasonable can be applied to an administrative decision only if the evidence presented leaves no room for differences of opinion among reasonable minds. Pittman v. Sarpy Cty. Bd. of Equal., 258 Neb. 390, 603 N.W.2d 447 (1999). In the case at bar, the field investigation report by Edgerton was introduced at the hearing as evidence that the appropriation should be forfeited and annulled. Section 46-229.04(1) provides in part that the verified field investigation report of an employee of the department shall be prima facie evidence for the forfeiture and annulment of such water appropriation. Under the scheme set out in § 46-229.04(1), the burden then shifts to an interested party to present evidence to the Department that the water has been put to a beneficial use during the prior 3 consecutive years. In In re Applications T-61 and T-62, 232 Neb. 316, 440 N.W.2d 466 (1989), we noted that the Department bore the burden to establish nonuse for the statutory period and that this fact could be established by the verified report of the Department. Once the report has been presented, then the appropriator must show cause why the appropriation should not be terminated. `The language of the statute clearly indicates that the burden is upon the appropriator to present evidence showing either that water was taken, contrary to the report filed by the Department [of Water Resources], or that some excuse existed for the water not being taken.' Id. at 325, 440 N.W.2d at 472. The Boses did not sustain their burden to present evidence that the water had been put to a beneficial use during the prior 3 consecutive years. Lee Bose's testimony regarding use of the appropriation related to an incident that occurred in the mid-1990's. As such, the incident took place more than 3 years before the March 20, 2003, hearing with respect to water appropriation A-4924. Nothing in the record demonstrates the use of water appropriation A-4924 after the mid-1990's, and therefore, the director's determination that the land covered by this appropriation had not been irrigated for more than 3 consecutive years is supported by the evidence and is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Once it has been established that a water appropriation has not been used for more than 3 consecutive years, it is the burden of the interested party, in this case the Boses, to present evidence that there was sufficient cause for nonuse. See § 46-229.04(1). The Boses claim that the Department failed to find that sufficient cause existed for their nonuse of water appropriation A-4924. The Boses refer to § 46-229.04(3)(c) and (e). These subsections state respectively that sufficient cause for nonuse exists when the available water supply is inadequate to enable its use for beneficial or useful purposes, or in circumstances where a prudent person, following the dictates of good husbandry, would not have been expected to use the water. We conclude that nothing in the record attests to the Republican River's being an inadequate water source. As such, any argument that the Boses attempt to make regarding sufficient cause pursuant to § 46-229.04(3)(c) is without merit. To the contrary, the testimony presented at the March 20, 2003, hearing tends to show that the Boses used the appropriation from the Republican River only when their ground water wells contained an inadequate water supply. The evidence establishes that this happened once in the mid-1990's, which was more than 3 years prior to the date of this hearing. At the hearing, when asked why the Boses had used their ground water wells for irrigation instead of surface water available via water appropriation A-4924, Lee Bose testified that it was a matter of convenience. No evidence was presented to establish how mere convenience could rise to a level of conformance with the dictates of good husbandry. Therefore, the director of the Department did not err in failing to find that sufficient cause existed for nonuse pursuant to § 46-229.04(3)(e).