“When the Water Shuts Off”:
Due-Process Notice to Corporate Landowners and the Finality of Irrigated-Acre Reductions under Neb. Rev. Stat. §46-746(1)
A Comprehensive Commentary on State ex rel. Seeman v. Lower Republican Natural Resources District, 319 Neb. 681 (2025)

I. Introduction

Nebraska’s groundwater occupies a unique space in American water law: it is owned by the State in trust for its people, but its day-to-day regulation is delegated to locally elected Natural Resources Districts (NRDs). In State ex rel. Seeman v. Lower Republican NRD the Nebraska Supreme Court confronted two questions left open by decades of administrative practice:

1. What type of notice does due process require when an NRD seeks to decertify irrigated acres that are owned by a corporation?
2. Once irrigated acres are fully decertified, does a later purchaser (or heir) obtain a fresh slate, or does the forfeiture travel with the land?

Answering those questions, the Court fashioned two clear rules of statewide importance:

(1) A corporation that owns irrigated land is itself a “person” entitled to individualized notice of any NRD proceeding that threatens its water rights; failure to serve the corporation renders any resulting order void as to that entity.

(2) Under §46-746(1) a completed reduction of certified irrigated acres “is not affected by the acquisition” of the land by a new owner; the forfeiture runs with the land.

These twin holdings recalibrate Nebraska’s groundwater enforcement landscape and clarify the reach of NRD police powers, the boundaries of sovereign immunity, and the availability of extraordinary relief through mandamus.

II. Factual & Procedural Background

• The Players – Gerald Schluntz (now deceased) and his family operated roughly 1,100 certified acres in the Lower Republican NRD (LRNRD). Two parcels belonged to SBS Farms, Inc.; others belonged to Schluntz personally. After Schluntz’s death, his spouse Steve Seeman inherited the personal parcels.
• The Infraction – LRNRD officials discovered tampering bolts on flow meters – a serious violation because accurate readings are crucial to compliance with the Republican River Compact allocations.
• Administrative Action – In 2016 LRNRD mailed a “Notice of Intent to Issue Cease and Desist Order” to Schluntz, Smith, and Bishop, scheduled a public hearing, and ultimately entered a February 2017 order permanently forfeiting all 1,107.5 certified acres and the 2017 allocation.
• Appeal Failure – The family attempted to appeal to the Furnas County District Court, which dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (wrong venue). The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed in Estate of Schluntz v. LRNRD, 300 Neb. 582 (2018).
• Mandamus Phase – Five years later Seeman and SBS separately petitioned for mandamus in Harlan County, arguing the 2017 order was void for want of jurisdiction and notice. The district court granted both writs and awarded fees. LRNRD appealed; Seeman and SBS cross-appealed, seeking a broader declaration that perpetual forfeitures are inherently void.

III. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court split the baby:

• SBS Farms, Inc. – Affirmed (as modified). The 2017 forfeiture is void against SBS because the NRD never served the corporation with the notice required by due process and §46-707(1)(h). LRNRD is enjoined from enforcing the order against SBS, but sovereign immunity bars compelling NRD to recertify the acres or perform other affirmative acts.
• Steve Seeman – Reversed. Because Seeman acquired the land only after the forfeiture was complete, §46-746(1) makes the reduction permanent as to him. He lacked a clear right to relief and therefore no writ should have issued.
• Attorney Fees – Fees to Seeman vacated; fees to SBS upheld.

IV. In-Depth Analysis

A. Precedents & Authorities Cited

1. Estate of Schluntz v. LRNRD, 300 Neb. 582 (2018) – confirmed venue rules for NRD appeals; foreshadowed later collateral attack.
2. Prokop v. Lower Loup NRD, 302 Neb. 10 (2019) – recognised groundwater use as a constitutionally protected property interest.
3. Community Care Health Plan v. Jackson, 317 Neb. 141 (2024) – exception to sovereign immunity where officials exceed authority.
4. State ex rel. Steinke v. Lautenbaugh, 263 Neb. 652 (2002) – distinction between prohibitory and mandatory relief for sovereign-immunity purposes.
5. Federal notice cases (e.g., Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank) implicitly relied on for due-process standards.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Jurisdictional Foundations
   • Mandamus is available only where the relator shows a clear right and the public official a clear ministerial duty.
   • Collateral attack on a void order is permissible—so the Court first assessed whether the 2017 order was void as to each relator.
2. Notice to SBS
   • The statutory definition of “person” (§46-706(1)) expressly includes corporations.
   • LRNRD mailed notice only to the human family members; SBS’s name never appeared on certified-mail labels or published notices. The omission violated §46-707(1)(h) and due process.
   • A judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is void; therefore, the forfeiture was void as to SBS.
3. Effect of Ownership Succession (Seeman)
   • Seeman conceded he owned no interest during the NRD prosecution.
   • The Court interpreted §46-746(1) literally: “a reduction of irrigated acres completed before a person acquires an interest… is not affected by the acquisition.”
   • Thus the forfeiture “runs with the land,” analogous to a covenant or servitude. Because the NRD had jurisdiction over Schluntz at the time, the order remains valid against successors.
4. Sovereign Immunity & Remedy
   • Restraining enforcement of an invalid order is prohibitory relief (allowed).
   • Forcing the NRD affirmatively to recertify acres is a mandatory act; sovereign immunity blocks that demand.
   • The district court was therefore modified: LRNRD must not enforce the 2017 order against SBS, but need not recertify without a new application under its rules.
5. Attorney Fees
   • Neb. Rev. Stat. §25-2165 permits fees only when mandamus issues. No writ, no fees—hence Seeman’s award reversed.

C. Impact of the Decision

• State-wide Notice Protocols – NRDs must now treat every title holder—natural or artificial—as a separate “person” for service purposes. Expect administrative rule revisions to incorporate corporate-specific mailing and publication requirements.
• Transactional Certainty – Buyers of agricultural land can no longer assume they can “start fresh.” Due diligence must verify certified irrigated-acre status because forfeitures are durable.
• Litigation Strategy – The opinion delineates when mandamus will lie against NRDs: to stop unlawful enforcement, yes; to compel affirmative recertification, no. Aggrieved parties must file a new administrative petition or pursue statutory appeal, not mandamus, to re-gain certifications.
• Compact Compliance Pressure – By affirming robust NRD penalty authority (once notice is proper) the Court buttresses Nebraska’s ability to remain within its Republican River Compact allocation.

D. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Certified Irrigated Acres – An NRD “certifies” the number of acres on a parcel that may lawfully be irrigated with groundwater. Certification drives allocation of acre-inches and taxation.
• Decertification / Forfeiture – An NRD can revoke (temporarily or permanently) certified status as a penalty for violations—similar to revoking a driver’s license after infractions.
• Mandamus – A special lawsuit asking a court to order a government officer to perform (or stop performing) a duty so obvious that no discretion is involved.
• Prohibitory vs. Mandatory Injunction – Courts may bar officials from enforcing an unlawful measure (prohibitory). Ordering an official to take affirmative steps (mandatory) often triggers sovereign-immunity barriers.
• Collateral Attack – Challenging the validity of an order in a separate proceeding rather than the original forum. Only possible if the original order was “void,” typically for lack of jurisdiction or notice.

V. Conclusion

Seeman v. Lower Republican NRD augments Nebraska water law in two decisive ways. First, it constitutionalizes NRD service of process: corporations must be named and served when their water rights are at stake. Second, it cements the principle that once irrigated acres are stripped, subsequent owners inherit that shortage—vindicating the NRDs’ long-term enforcement power and safeguarding interstate-compact compliance. The ruling simultaneously respects sovereign-immunity limits while providing landowners a clear pathway—proper notice and agency procedure—to challenge decertifications. Practitioners, agricultural lenders, and prospective purchasers ignore these lessons at their peril; the water, once shut off, stays off unless (and until) the statutory process is properly re-engaged.