Frenchman-Cambridge Irr. Dist. v. Dept. of Nat. Res.
297 Neb. 999
Neb.2017Background
- Frenchman‑Cambridge Irrigation District (FCID), a Nebraska irrigation district, sued to challenge integrated management plans (IMPs) adopted by the Department of Natural Resources (Department) and three Republican River Basin NRDs that eased prior groundwater pumping reductions from 25% to 20%.
- FCID alleged the IMPs violate the U.S. Constitution, the Nebraska Constitution, and the Republican River Compact, and claimed the increased pumping authorized by the IMPs would reduce streamflow and harm its ability to deliver water under contracts, forcing budget and operational changes.
- The Department and NRDs moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The district court found jurisdiction but dismissed FCID’s petition for failure to state a claim.
- On appeal, the State challenged FCID’s standing and the district court’s jurisdiction; the Supreme Court first addressed whether FCID had standing (a jurisdictional prerequisite).
- The court concluded the IMPs are planning documents that do not themselves implement controls or increase pumping; implementation would require further NRD determinations and orders under statute, so any injury to FCID was speculative and not imminent.
- Because FCID lacked an injury‑in‑fact, the Supreme Court held FCID lacked standing, vacated the district court’s order, and dismissed the appeal and cross‑appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FCID have standing to challenge the IMPs? | FCID: The IMPs allow increased groundwater pumping, which will diminish surface flows and harm FCID’s water supply, contracts, budget, and operations. | State/NRDs: IMPs are management plans that do not themselves change pumping; any restrictions or changes require subsequent NRD orders, so injury is speculative. | No standing. IMPs are planning documents; alleged harms are conjectural until NRD action occurs. |
| Did the district court have subject‑matter jurisdiction under § 46‑750 or § 84‑911(1)? | FCID: Agreed court had jurisdiction but disputed basis. | State: Argued lack of jurisdiction due to lack of standing. | Court did not reach statutory jurisdictional question because lack of standing resolved jurisdictional defect. |
| Did FCID state a claim entitling it to relief on constitutional or Compact grounds? | FCID: Raised Compact, Commerce, Equal Protection, Due Process, and state constitutional claims based on reduced water availability. | State/NRDs: Claims premature because IMPs do not effectuate control measures; no concrete injury alleged. | Not addressed on the merits; dismissal affirmed for lack of jurisdiction (standing). |
| Can an IMP be challenged pre‑implementation? | FCID: Challenged IMPs themselves as unlawful. | State/NRDs: Pre‑implementation challenge is premature; judicial review is available after concrete orders are issued. | Pre‑implementation challenge dismissed as the alleged injuries are not imminent; FCID must await implementation orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Central Neb. Pub. Power Dist. v. N. Platte Natural Res. Dist., 280 Neb. 533 (2010) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury; mere allegation of reduced supply insufficient)
- Zapata v. McHugh, 296 Neb. 216 (2017) (motion to dismiss on pleadings reviewed de novo; accept complaint allegations and draw inferences for nonmoving party)
- Sierra Club v. Robertson, 28 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1994) (planning‑stage challenges may lack standing where additional site‑specific action is required before injury can occur)