Introduction In a recently released opinion, the Kansas Court of Appeals for the first time addressed the meaning of Kansas water law. The case of Garetson Brothers v. American Warrior, Inc., 51 Kan. App. 2d 370 (2015), concerns a groundwater dispute between a senior water user and a junior water user in southwest Kansas. After filing a complaint against the junior user, the senior user sought an injunction against the junior user to stop their use of the groundwater. The District Court granted the injunction and the Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction in the case. The Court of Appeal’s decision upholds the principle “first in time is first in right” and finds that Kansas water laws mean what the laws say they mean.
Facts
The Plaintiffs (Garetson Brothers) owned land with a well on it in Haskell County. The well pumped groundwater from the Ogallala Aquifer for irrigation purposes, but the well produced less water. The water rights for …show more content…
The Court determined that under the law there were two basic types of rights, vested rights that are earlier common-law or statutory rights and appropriated rights under the Kansas Water Appropriation Act. K.S.A. 82a-701. The Court recognized that the law expressly provides that “the first in time is first in right” under K.S.A. 82a-707(c). As such, the Court holds that only the date of priority and not the purpose of use matters when it comes to water rights disputes. As such, the Court found that a vested right such as the Plaintiff’s right had priority over a later appropriation right such as the Defendant’s right. While this seems like a clear application of the law, it does represent one of the first applications of the principle in a dispute between senior and junior water users in Kansas. Going forward, the Court has signaled that the only consideration in this type of matter is who has the senior water
Facts
The Plaintiffs (Garetson Brothers) owned land with a well on it in Haskell County. The well pumped groundwater from the Ogallala Aquifer for irrigation purposes, but the well produced less water. The water rights for …show more content…
The Court determined that under the law there were two basic types of rights, vested rights that are earlier common-law or statutory rights and appropriated rights under the Kansas Water Appropriation Act. K.S.A. 82a-701. The Court recognized that the law expressly provides that “the first in time is first in right” under K.S.A. 82a-707(c). As such, the Court holds that only the date of priority and not the purpose of use matters when it comes to water rights disputes. As such, the Court found that a vested right such as the Plaintiff’s right had priority over a later appropriation right such as the Defendant’s right. While this seems like a clear application of the law, it does represent one of the first applications of the principle in a dispute between senior and junior water users in Kansas. Going forward, the Court has signaled that the only consideration in this type of matter is who has the senior water