Frenchman-Cambridge Irr. Dist. v. Dept. of Nat. Res.
297 Neb. 999
Neb.2017Background
- Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District (FCID), a Nebraska irrigation district, filed for review under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging newly approved integrated management plans (IMPs) for the Republican River Basin that allow a 20% reduction in groundwater pumping (previous IMPs had a 25% reduction).
- FCID alleged the IMPs violate the U.S. Constitution (Compact, Commerce, Equal Protection, Due Process), Nebraska Constitution, and the Republican River Compact, and claimed the plans would diminish surface water available to fulfill its contractual and federal obligations.
- Defendants included the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (Department), NRDs for the Republican River Basin, the Department director, and the Attorney General; they moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- The district court found it had jurisdiction but dismissed FCID’s petition for failure to state a claim; FCID appealed and defendants cross-appealed arguing lack of standing and jurisdiction.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether FCID had standing and whether the district court had jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 46-750 or § 84-911(1); it limited its review to standing.
- The court concluded the IMPs are planning documents that do not themselves implement groundwater limits; actual controls require subsequent NRD orders, so FCID’s alleged injury was not sufficiently concrete or imminent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge IMPs | FCID: IMPs permitting more pumping will reduce water available to FCID, harm operations, budgets, and contractual obligations | Defs: IMPs are planning tools that do not by themselves increase pumping or reduce supply; implementation requires later NRD orders | No standing — alleged harms are speculative and not imminent |
| Whether IMPs themselves effectuate enforceable controls | FCID: IMPs set water controls and thus are reviewable agency action | Defs: IMPs only describe potential controls; statutory scheme requires NRD determinations and separate orders to implement limits | IMPs are plans, not self-executing controls; implementation requires further action |
| Subject matter jurisdiction under cited statutes (§46-750 or §84-911(1)) | FCID: district court had jurisdiction to review IMPs under Administrative Procedure Act | Defs: lack of jurisdiction because no standing (court declined to resolve statutory basis after deciding standing) | Court did not reach statutory-jurisdiction question because lack of standing is dispositive |
| Dismissal for failure to state a claim | FCID: pleaded specific harms (budget changes, contract negotiation/possible breach) making claim justiciable | Defs: allegations depend on future NRD actions; complaint fails to show concrete injury | Dismissal stands for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to absence of standing; district court order vacated and appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Zapata v. McHugh, 296 Neb. 216 (2017) (standard for de novo review of dismissal on pleadings)
- Central Nebraska Public Power Dist. v. North Platte Natural Resources Dist., 280 Neb. 533 (2010) (standing requires concrete allegation how reduced supply causes particularized harm)
- Selma Development v. Great Western Bank, 285 Neb. 37 (2013) (appellate courts need not decide unnecessary issues)
- Sierra Club v. Robertson, 28 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1994) (plans that require further site-specific action do not confer standing for speculative injuries)