Due-Process Notice to Corporate Landowners and the Finality of Decertified Irrigated Acres:
A Commentary on State ex rel. Seeman v. Lower Republican NRD, 319 Neb. 681 (2025)

1. Introduction

The Nebraska Supreme Court’s decision in State ex rel. Seeman v. Lower Republican NRD addresses two pivotal questions in Nebraska water-law and administrative-procedure jurisprudence: (1) What level of notice satisfies due-process requirements when an administrative agency seeks to forfeit or reduce certified irrigated acres belonging to a corporation? and (2) Does a later purchaser or distributee of land inherit the burden of a previously perfected forfeiture of irrigated acres? The ruling clarifies that corporate landowners are entitled to individualised notice before their water rights are curtailed, and that completed decertifications remain effective against subsequent owners.

The litigation stems from enforcement efforts by the Lower Republican Natural Resources District (LRNRD) after it discovered meter tampering on eight irrigation wells. LRNRD imposed a cease-and-desist order in 2017, permanently forfeiting 1,107.5 certified irrigated acres. Years later, Steve Seeman (sole heir of the original violator) and SBS Farms, Inc. (a separate corporate owner of some affected parcels) sought mandamus to set aside the order, arguing lack of jurisdiction and due-process deficiencies. The district court granted both writs; the Supreme Court reversed as to Seeman and affirmed (with limits) as to SBS Farms.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• SBS Farms, Inc. – The Court held the 2017 LRNRD order void as to SBS because the corporation, though a recorded owner, never received notice of the cease-and-desist or hearing. Due-process requires direct notice to a corporate landowner when its irrigated acres are at stake. Consequently, LRNRD officers have a ministerial duty not to enforce the order against SBS. The Court nonetheless curtailed the district court’s remedy, striking any requirement that LRNRD undertake affirmative recertification (barred by sovereign immunity).
• Steve Seeman – Seeman inherited the land after the forfeiture became final. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 46-746(1), “[a] reduction of irrigated acres completed before a person acquires an interest in the real estate is not affected by the acquisition of such interest.” Because LRNRD had jurisdiction over Seeman’s predecessor (the estate of Gerald Schluntz) and lawfully completed the decertification, the order was not void as to Seeman. His writ was therefore reversed and his attorney-fee award vacated.
• Attorney Fees – Fees awarded to SBS Farms were affirmed under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2165. Fees to Seeman were reversed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Prokop v. Lower Loup NRD, 302 Neb. 10 (2019) – Confirmed that the right to use groundwater is a constitutionally protected property interest. This underpinned the Court’s insistence on due-process notice to SBS Farms.
2. Estate of Schluntz v. LRNRD, 300 Neb. 582 (2018) – Dismissed the earlier direct appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (wrong venue). The Court now referenced that dismissal to emphasise the finality of LRNRD’s order.
3. Nebraska Journalism Trust (2024) & Cain v. Lymber (2020) – Reiterated standards for mandamus: clear right, ministerial duty, and no adequate legal remedy. These framed the Court’s evaluation of the writs.
4. Sovereign-immunity cases – Community Care Health Plan (2024) and Steinke v. Lautenbaugh (2002) distinguished suits seeking to restrain officers (permitted) from those compelling affirmative state action (barred). Guided the partial modification of the SBS remedy.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in two logical stages:

1. Validity of the 2017 Order
   • Personal jurisdiction & due process – A cease-and-desist order is void if issued without personal jurisdiction; jurisdiction requires notice reasonably calculated to reach affected persons. While LRNRD served Schluntz’s estate and his individual successors, it wholly omitted SBS Farms despite recorded ownership and an ascertainable address. Hence, as to SBS, the order lacked due-process foundations.
   • Finality against later acquirers – Section 46-746(1) contains no language allowing reinstatement of forfeited acres upon title transfer. The Court adopted a textualist approach: once certified acres are reduced, the burden “runs with the land.” Seeman, acquiring after finality, takes subject to that burden.
2. Mandamus Viability and Sovereign-Immunity Overlay
   • For SBS, the relief sought was simply to stop LRNRD officials from enforcing a void order – a ministerial negative duty, not barred by immunity. However, compelling affirmative recertification would intrude upon discretionary/sovereign functions; therefore, the Court pared the writ back to a purely negative injunction.
   • For Seeman, no ministerial duty existed because the order remained valid; LRNRD retained discretion regarding any potential re-application for certification. Accordingly, mandamus could not issue.

3.3 Potential Impact

• Administrative Procedure – Agencies must give individual, direct notice to each record owner—natural or artificial—when property-specific penalties are contemplated. Newspaper notice or service on related persons does not suffice.
• Water-Rights Transactions – Buyers, devisees, and distributees should perform enhanced due-diligence on the status of certified irrigated acres; forfeitures survive transfers absent statutory reinstatement. Title opinions must now reflect NRD penalty histories, akin to easements or restrictive covenants.
• Sovereign-Immunity Litigation – The decision tightens the remedial window: courts may enjoin enforcement of void orders but cannot order agencies to perform affirmative tasks (e.g., re-certification) without explicit legislative waiver.
• Consistency with Interstate Water Obligations – By upholding the efficacy of LRNRD’s penalties, the Court supports Nebraska’s ability to meet Republican River Compact allocations, reinforcing cooperation between local NRDs and the Department of Natural Resources.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Certified Irrigated Acres

The exact number of acres for which an NRD has approved groundwater irrigation. Think of it as a “license plate” for each irrigable acre.

Decertification / Forfeiture

Administrative removal of the right to irrigate designated acres, typically as a sanction for rule violations.

Mandamus

A court order compelling a government officer to perform (or stop) a ministerial duty—something the law leaves no discretion about.

Ministerial vs. Discretionary Acts

Ministerial: duties the law specifies in detail (e.g., recording a deed). Discretionary: tasks requiring judgment (e.g., deciding whether to certify acres in the first place).

Sovereign Immunity

Doctrine barring lawsuits against the State or its arms unless the legislature says otherwise. A suit against individual officers can sidestep immunity only to halt unlawful acts, not to force new affirmative ones.

Collateral Attack

An attempt to invalidate a judgment/order in a new proceeding rather than through direct appeal. Permitted if the first order is void (e.g., for lack of jurisdiction).

5. Conclusion

State ex rel. Seeman v. Lower Republican NRD elaborates Nebraska’s due-process requirements for administrative penalties in water regulation and cements the finality of completed forfeitures of certified irrigated acres. The Court established two key rules:

1. Notice Rule – An NRD must provide direct, individualized notice to each corporate landowner whose irrigated acres are threatened; failure renders any resulting order void as to that landowner.
2. Finality Rule – Once irrigated acres are lawfully reduced, subsequent purchasers or distributees cannot revive them merely by acquiring title; the burden runs with the land under § 46-746(1).

Practitioners should view the decision as a dual caution: agencies must perfect service, and land transferees must investigate water-allocation status. The judgment harmonises procedural fairness with Nebraska’s imperative to safeguard finite groundwater resources and interstate compact obligations.