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

Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District (FCID), a Nebraska political subdivision that sells water for irrigation and to fulfill federal contractual obligations, is located in the Republican River Basin.
The Republican River Basin NRDs and the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (Department) jointly adopted integrated management plans (IMPs) in December 2015 that provide for a 20% reduction in groundwater pumping (less restrictive than prior 25% reductions).
FCID filed an Administrative Procedure Act petition in January 2016 challenging the new IMPs on constitutional and statutory grounds, naming the Department, its director, the Basin NRDs, and the Attorney General as defendants.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; the district court dismissed the petition under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6) but found jurisdiction existed.
On appeal, the State raised lack of standing and statutory jurisdiction as threshold jurisdictional issues; the Supreme Court considered standing dispositive and therefore did not decide the statutory-jurisdiction question.
The Supreme Court held FCID lacked standing because the IMPs themselves do not directly implement groundwater controls or increase pumping; any enforceable limits require subsequent NRD orders after triggers and reviews, so alleged harms were speculative and not imminent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing — injury in fact	FCID: IMPs allowing more pumping will reduce surface flows and deprive FCID of water, forcing budget/operation changes and possible contract breaches	State: IMPs are planning documents; they do not by themselves change pumping or create enforceable restrictions — NRDs must later issue orders for controls	Held: FCID lacks standing; alleged harms speculative and not imminent because implementation requires later NRD action
Subject-matter jurisdiction under statutes	FCID: district court had jurisdiction to review IMPs (agreed lower court found jurisdiction)	State: challenged whether § 46-750 or § 84-911(1) provided jurisdiction	Held: Court did not reach statutory-jurisdiction question because lack of standing deprived court of jurisdiction
Justiciability of plan-stage challenges	FCID: plan causes present injuries and is ripe for review	State: plan-stage challenge is premature; analogous to forest-plan precedents where site-specific approvals are required	Held: Plan-stage challenge premature; injuries not sufficiently imminent (remedy must await future orders)
Reviewability of IMPs as rules/regulations	FCID: IMPs violative of federal and state constitutional provisions and compact	State: IMPs are not self-executing rules imposing limits	Held: Court did not adjudicate substantive constitutional claims after dismissing for lack of standing

Zapata v. McHugh, 296 Neb. 216 (review of motions to dismiss is de novo)
Central Neb. Pub. Power Dist. v. North Platte NRD, 280 Neb. 533 (standing requires concrete allegation how reduced supply causes harm)
Selma Development v. Great Western Bank, 285 Neb. 37 (appellate courts need not decide unnecessary issues)
Sierra Club v. Robertson, 28 F.3d 753 (8th Cir.) (agency plan-stage challenge lacks standing where further site-specific approvals are required)
Steven S. v. Mary S., 277 Neb. 124 (appellate duty to determine jurisdiction)
Johnson v. Nelson, 290 Neb. 703 (courts avoid analysis unnecessary to adjudicate case)