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 contracts, challenged 2015 integrated management plans (IMPs) for the Republican River Basin that allow greater groundwater pumping than prior plans.
IMPs were jointly developed by the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (Department) and the three Republican River Natural Resources Districts (NRDs) under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 46-715 to manage groundwater and surface water balance.
FCID filed a petition under Nebraska’s Administrative Procedure Act alleging constitutional and statutory violations (Compact Clause, Commerce Clause, Equal Protection, Due Process, state constitution, and the Republican River Compact).
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; the district court found jurisdiction but dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim.
On appeal, the State argued FCID lacked standing and that the district court lacked jurisdiction under statutory provisions; the Supreme Court focused on standing and whether FCID alleged an injury in fact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does FCID have standing to challenge the IMPs?	IMPs permitting more pumping will reduce streamflow, deprive FCID of water, force budget/operations changes, and risk breach of federal contracts.	IMPs are planning documents; they do not themselves implement pumping increases or controls — only subsequent NRD orders would do so, so no imminent injury.	FCID lacks standing: alleged harms are speculative because IMPs do not autonomously cause increased pumping; any injurious orders require future NRD action.
Did the court have subject matter jurisdiction?	FCID agreed there was jurisdiction but disputed the basis.	State argued lack of standing defeats jurisdiction.	Court lacked jurisdiction because FCID lacked standing; thus did not reach statutory jurisdictional question.
Were the IMPs themselves final, reviewable actions that harm FCID?	IMPs are definitive plans affecting water availability.	IMPs are framework documents requiring future site-specific determinations before controls are implemented.	IMPs are not final implementation orders; they contemplate reviews and future NRD actions, so not presently injurious.
Should the district court’s dismissal be upheld?	Petition stated sufficient, concrete harms to survive dismissal.	Petition fails to allege an actual or imminent injury in fact.	Dismissal upheld for lack of standing; appellate court vacated district court order for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed appeal.

Zapata v. McHugh, 296 Neb. 216 (standing and motion-to-dismiss standard)
Central Neb. Pub. Power Dist. v. North Platte NRD, 280 Neb. 533 (requirements for injury-in-fact in water disputes)
Sierra Club v. Robertson, 28 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1994) (planning-stage challenges lacked standing where site-specific approvals were required)
Selma Development v. Great Western Bank, 285 Neb. 37 (appellate courts need not decide unnecessary issues)
In re Invol. Dissolution of Wiles Bros., 285 Neb. 920 (standing as a defect of subject-matter jurisdiction)