Frenchman-Cambridge Irr. Dist. v. Dept. of Nat. Res., 297 Neb. 999

Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District (FCID), a Nebraska irrigation district, sells water and uses revenues to meet obligations to federal reclamation agencies.
The Republican River Basin in Nebraska is governed by NRDs and the Department of Natural Resources (Department); in 2015 they adopted integrated management plans (IMPs) allowing a 20% reduction in groundwater pumping (less restrictive than prior 25% reduction).
FCID filed an Administrative Procedure Act petition (Jan. 2016) challenging the new IMPs on constitutional and statutory grounds, alleging increased pumping would reduce surface flows and injure FCID’s ability to satisfy contracts and operations.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the district court granted dismissal for failure to state a claim but found it had jurisdiction.
On appeal the State challenged FCID’s standing and the district court’s jurisdiction; the Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether FCID had suffered an injury-in-fact sufficient for standing.
The Supreme Court concluded the IMPs are planning documents that do not themselves implement water-control orders; any injurious controls would require subsequent NRD determinations and orders, so FCID’s alleged injury was not imminent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing — injury-in-fact	IMPs will allow more pumping, diminishing surface flows and depriving FCID of water, forcing budget/contractual hardship	IMPs are plans only; they do not by themselves increase pumping or impose controls—implementation requires future NRD orders	FCID lacks standing: alleged harms are contingent on future actions and thus not sufficiently imminent
Justiciability of IMPs (are IMPs final, reviewable orders)	IMPs are unlawful and directly affect FCID’s rights and water supply	IMPs are joint management plans that set standards; actual restrictive measures require subsequent NRD action under statute	IMPs are planning documents; they do not by themselves implement enforceable controls—challenge is premature
Subject-matter jurisdiction under statutory schemes	(FCID accepted jurisdiction existed but disputed basis)	State urged dismissal for lack of jurisdiction absent standing	Court did not reach statutory-jurisdiction question because lack of standing deprived the court of jurisdiction

Central Neb. Pub. Power Dist. v. North Platte NRD, 280 Neb. 533 (holding that a plaintiff must allege how a reduced water supply causes particularized harm)
Zapata v. McHugh, 296 Neb. 216 (discussing de novo review of motions to dismiss on the pleadings)
Sierra Club v. Robertson, 28 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1994) (planning-stage challenges fail for lack of imminent injury when further site-specific approvals are required)