Cochran v. State, Department of Agriculture
249 P.3d 434
Kan.2011Background
- Wichita adopted an Integrated Local Water Supply Plan through 2050 and sought permits to appropriate groundwater from the Equus Beds and Arkansas River bank storage; the Chief Engineer granted permits in 2008 over Cochranes’ concerns about senior water rights.
- Cochranes, who hold prior water rights near the City’s points of diversion, submitted input during the permit process.
- The Chief Engineer issued an initial order denying Cochranes’ hearing request for lack of standing under K.S.A. 82a-711(c); Cochranes appealed administratively and were denied by the Secretary of Agriculture.
- Cochranes filed a petition for judicial review in 2008 arguing the permits did not adequately protect their senior rights.
- The district court held Cochranes had standing to seek judicial review under Bremby, and the case proceeded to this intermediate appeal.
- The Supreme Court affirms, holding Cochranes have standing to challenge the Chief Engineer’s determinations under the KJRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cochranes have standing to seek judicial review | Cochranes meet KJRA standing as party to proceedings | KWAA 82a-711(c) limits standing to permit applicant | Cochranes have standing under the KJRA |
| Whether KWAA standing limits apply to judicial review without conflict | KJRA provides broader standing than KWAA | KWAA standing controls where applicable | KJRA applies; Cochranes qualify as party for judicial review under Bremby |
| Whether Cochranes were party to the permit proceedings | Cochranes submitted input during processing of permits | Participation did not constitute party status under Bremby | Cochranes were parties under KJRA; standing established |
| Whether KWAA and KJRA can be reconciled without invalidating Cochranes’ standing | KWAA is more specific but does not exclude KJRA | No conflict; specific statute controls only within its scope | No conflict; KJRA affords standing; Cochranes succeed on review |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was satisfied | Administrative remedies exhausted viaSecretary review | Not necessary if remedies unavailable | Cochranes satisfied exhaustion under KJRA |
Key Cases Cited
- Bremby v. Board of Sumner County Comm'rs, 286 Kan. 745 (2008) (standing requires cognizable injury and causal connection; broad proximity of injury shown)
- Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603 (2006) (history of water rights; first in time, first in right; KWAA framework)
- F. Arthur Stone & Sons v. Gibson, 230 Kan. 224 (1962) (appropriation doctrine; water rights as usufruct; non-retention of water by non-use)
- Chelsea Plaza Homes, Inc. v. Moore, 226 Kan. 430 (1979) (specific statute controls over general on standing)