Frenchman-Cambridge Irr. Dist. v. Dept. of Nat. Res.
297 Neb. 999
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District (FCID), a Nebraska irrigation district that sells water to meet contractual obligations, is located in the Republican River Basin and challenged newly approved integrated management plans (IMP’s) that allow increased groundwater pumping.
- The Republican River Basin NRDs and the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (Department) jointly developed IMP’s providing for a 20% reduction in groundwater pumping (less stringent than a prior 25% reduction). The IMP’s set out possible controls but do not themselves implement regulatory orders.
- FCID filed an Administrative Procedure Act petition in January 2016 alleging the IMP’s violated federal and state constitutional provisions and the Republican River Compact, naming the Department, its director, the NRDs, and the Attorney General as defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the district court found jurisdiction but dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. FCID appealed and defendants cross-appealed.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the court had jurisdiction (standing) and whether FCID stated a claim; the Court focused on standing as a threshold jurisdictional issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FCID have standing to challenge the IMP’s? | FCID: IMP’s allowing increased pumping will reduce surface flows available to FCID, forcing budget/operational changes and potential contract defaults. | State/NRDs: IMP’s are planning documents that do not themselves increase pumping or implement controls; actual injurious orders require later NRD action. | FCID lacks standing; alleged harms are speculative until implementing orders are issued. |
| Do the IMP’s themselves effectuate actionable regulatory changes? | FCID: IMP’s change the baseline management regime and thus injure FCID now. | State/NRDs: IMP’s only set a management framework and call for future review and possible orders; statutory process required before controls take effect. | IMP’s are planning documents; implementation requires subsequent NRD determinations and orders. |
| Was the district court’s dismissal on the pleadings proper? | FCID: District court erred in dismissing because petition sufficiently alleged injury and constitutional/statutory violations. | Defendants: Petition failed to allege a concrete, imminent injury; dismissal appropriate. | Court did not reach merits after finding lack of standing; dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction required vacatur of district court order. |
| Should appellate court resolve other jurisdictional bases (§ 46-750 or § 84-911)? | FCID: District court had jurisdiction though FCID questioned exact statutory basis. | State: Raised alternative jurisdictional defenses; lack of standing is dispositive. | Court declined to reach additional jurisdictional questions after resolving standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zapata v. McHugh, 296 Neb. 216 (2017) (motion to dismiss on pleadings reviewed de novo; allegations accepted as true)
- Central Neb. Pub. Power Dist. v. North Platte NRD, 280 Neb. 533 (2010) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury; mere allegation of reduced supply insufficient)
- 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) (plan-stage challenges may lack imminence where further site-specific decisions are required)