Cochran v. State
249 P.3d 434
Kan.2011Background
- City of Wichita adopted Integrated Local Water Supply Plan (1993) to 2050; City sought KWAA permits to appropriate groundwater (Equus Beds) and bank storage water (Bently Well Field).
- Chief Engineer approved permits; Cochranes, prior water-right holders nearby, submitted concerns about impairment but permits issued Feb 2008.
- Permits contained impairment provisions and potential modifications or revocation if sustainable yield or existing rights were impaired; Cochranes received copies.
- Cochranes requested a hearing; Chief Engineer denied standing under KWAA (K.S.A. 82a-711(c)) for non-applicant challengers.
- Cochranes petitioned for judicial review; district court held Cochranes had standing under Bremby; interlocutory appeal followed.
- This appeal asks whether Cochranes have standing to seek judicial review of Chief Engineer’s permit determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cochranes have standing under KWAA to seek judicial review. | Cochrains claim standing via K.S.A. 82a-711(c) and KJRA. | DWR/City contend KWAA standing is limited to applicants. | Cochranes have no KWAA standing; but have KJRA standing. |
| Whether Cochranes have standing under KJRA to seek judicial review. | Cochranes participated in the proceedings as party under Bremby. | KJRA standing limited by party definition. | Cochranes have KJRA standing as parties to the proceeding. |
| Whether traditional standing requirements are met. | Cochranes suffer imminent injury to property and water supply. | No concrete injury proven beyond potential impairment. | Traditional standing satisfied; imminent injury shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bremby, Board of Sumner County Comm'rs v. Bremby, 286 Kan. 745 (Kan. 2008) (standing requires a cognizable injury and causal link; party to proceedings can have standing under KJRA)
- Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603 (Kan. 2006) (water rights under KWAA; first in time, first in right; statutes interpreted together)
- F. Arthur Stone & Sons v. Gibson, 230 Kan. 224 (Kan. 1981) (appropriation doctrine; water rights are usufructs, not ownership; precedents for reasonable use)
- In re Tax Exemption Application of Mental Health Ass'n of the Heartland, 289 Kan. 1209 (Kan. 2009) (statutory interpretation; specific vs general statutes; no conflict here)