Frenchman-Cambridge Irr. Dist. v. Dept. of Nat. Res.
297 Neb. 999
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District (FCID), a Nebraska political subdivision that sells water under contracts (including federal obligations), is located in the Republican River Basin.
- Nebraska’s Republican Basin NRDs and the Department of Natural Resources (Department) jointly developed integrated management plans (IMPs) under the Ground Water Management and Protection Act; in Dec. 2015 the IMPs allowed a 20% reduction in groundwater pumping (less restrictive than prior 25% reduction).
- FCID filed an administrative petition (Jan. 2016) challenging the newly approved 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 found jurisdiction but dismissed FCID’s petition for failure to state a claim.
- On appeal the State argued FCID lacked standing and the district court lacked jurisdiction under statutory provisions; the Supreme Court focused on standing and subsequent jurisdictional effects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FCID have standing to challenge the IMPs? | FCID: IMPs allow increased pumping that will reduce surface flows available to FCID, harming operations, budgets, and federal contract performance. | State/NRDs: IMPs are planning documents; they do not themselves increase pumping or impose controls — actual limits require future NRD orders. | No standing; alleged harms are speculative until NRDs adopt implementing orders. |
| Do the IMPs themselves cause an injury-in-fact? | FCID: The IMPs’ allowance for more pumping will interfere with recharge and reduce waters FCID captures. | Defendants: IMPs only set management framework; implementation requires further determinations and orders by NRDs per statute. | IMPs do not by themselves implement controls; injury is not sufficiently imminent. |
| Is the district court’s dismissal reviewable given jurisdictional questions? | FCID: District court had jurisdiction (though FCID disputed some aspects). | Defendants: Standing is a jurisdictional defect that can be raised anytime. | Court held lack of standing deprives it of jurisdiction and dismissed appeal; vacated district court order. |
| Are prior standing precedents (e.g., irrigation district cases) distinguishable? | FCID: This case alleges more concrete impacts (budget, contract issues) than prior cases. | Defendants: Even enhanced allegations do not cure speculative future harms absent implementing action. | Court found prior precedent controlling; enhanced allegations still too speculative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zapata v. McHugh, 296 Neb. 216 (standard of review for motion to dismiss on pleadings)
- Central Neb. Pub. Power Dist. v. North Platte NRD, 280 Neb. 533 (standing requires concrete showing of how reduced supply causes specific harm)
- Selma Development v. Great Western Bank, 285 Neb. 37 (appellate courts need not decide unnecessary issues)
- Frenchman-Cambridge Irr. Dist. v. Dept. of Nat. Res., 281 Neb. 992 (background on Republican River Basin management)
- Sierra Club v. Robertson, 28 F.3d 753 (8th Cir.) (planning-stage challenges lack standing where site-specific approvals are required before harm)