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

Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District (FCID), a Nebraska irrigation district, filed for administrative review challenging integrated management plans (IMPs) adopted for the Republican River Basin that allow a 20% groundwater pumping reduction (less restrictive than prior 25% reductions).
FCID alleged the IMPs violate federal and state constitutional provisions and the Republican River Compact because increased permitted pumping will reduce surface water available to FCID, harming its operations and contractual obligations.
Defendants included the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources, the Republican River Basin NRDs, the Department director, and the Attorney General; they moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
The district court found it had jurisdiction but dismissed FCID’s petition for failure to state a claim; both sides appealed (FCID appealed; defendants cross-appealed on standing and jurisdiction grounds).
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether it had jurisdiction and whether FCID had standing to challenge the IMPs, focusing on whether FCID alleged a concrete, imminent injury caused by the IMPs themselves.
The court held the IMPs are management plans that do not by themselves implement groundwater controls; actual limiting orders require future NRD determinations and orders, so FCID’s alleged harms were speculative and not sufficiently imminent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge IMPs	IMPs permit more pumping, which will reduce streamflow and deprive FCID of water, harming operations and contractual obligations	IMPs are planning documents; they do not by themselves increase pumping or implement controls; any limits require future NRD action, so injury is speculative	FCID lacks standing; alleged injury is not sufficiently concrete or imminent; appeal dismissed
District court subject-matter jurisdiction under statutes	Court had jurisdiction to review under relevant statutes (FCID contends jurisdiction exists)	State argued lack of jurisdiction; defendants raised standing and statutory jurisdiction issues	Not reached: because FCID lacks standing, court did not decide statutory-jurisdiction issue

Zapata v. McHugh, 296 Neb. 216 (standard for de novo review of motion to dismiss)
Central Neb. Pub. Power Dist. v. North Platte NRD, 280 Neb. 533 (standing requires alleging how reduced water supply causes particularized harm)
Sierra Club v. Robertson, 28 F.3d 753 (8th Cir.) (planning-stage challenges lack standing when additional site-specific action is required)
Selma Development v. Great Western Bank, 285 Neb. 37 (appellate courts need not decide unnecessary issues)