Lingenfelter v. Lower Elkhorn NRD
294 Neb. 46
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Burton Lingenfelter began irrigating Dunaway Farm (not previously irrigated or classified as irrigated between 1999–2008) using a well on adjacent Rehfeld Farm starting in 2010.
- Lower Elkhorn Natural Resources District (District) rules prohibit new groundwater-irrigated acres without a variance and define Historically Irrigated Acres by County Assessor classification between 1999–2008; Rule 14 establishes a certification ("look-back") procedure.
- District staff issued a preliminary finding that Dunaway Farm had no Historically Irrigated Acres and notified Lingenfelter he would receive a cease-and-desist if he continued irrigating.
- After a hearing the Board ordered Lingenfelter to cease irrigation; Lingenfelter appealed under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and sought a declaratory judgment challenging Rule 14 as violating due process, equal protection, and exceeding statutory authority.
- The district court affirmed the cease-and-desist on the administrative record, rejected equitable estoppel and misapplication arguments, and granted summary judgment to the District on the facial constitutional challenges to Rule 14.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, finding the Board’s decision supported by competent evidence and Rule 14 constitutional under rational-basis review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District staff preapproved irrigation and whether equitable estoppel bars enforcement | Lingenfelter: staff effectively preapproved irrigation in a 2009 conversation; District should be estopped | District: no definitive staff approval; plaintiff’s belief subjective; no detrimental reliance on conduct amounting to estoppel | Court: testimony insufficient to show staff approval; no estoppel — Board decision upheld on record |
| Whether Board misapplied its definitions (Irrigated Acres vs Historically Irrigated Acres) | Lingenfelter: Board required final Rule 14 certification before treating acres as irrigated; misapplied definitions | District: cease-and-desist was based on lack of Historically Irrigated Acres and absence of variance, not on final certification status | Court: Board never determined Dunaway was an "Irrigated Acre"; enforcement properly based on Historically Irrigated Acres rule and lack of variance |
| Whether Rule 14 look-back (1999–2008) violates substantive due process | Lingenfelter: 10-year window is arbitrary, excludes those who began irrigating after 2008 (including him) unfairly | District: look-back reasonably establishes baseline to limit expansion of irrigated acres and conserve groundwater; authorized by statute | Court: Look-back has a substantial relation to public welfare (groundwater conservation); not arbitrary or capricious; due process claim rejected |
| Whether Rule 14 violates equal protection (facial and as-applied) | Lingenfelter: classification creates arbitrary "winners and losers" (pre-2009 vs post-2008 irrigators) without rational basis | District: classification rationally furthers groundwater conservation; not suspect class nor affecting fundamental right | Court: Rational-basis standard applies; look-back is rationally related to legitimate state interest; equal protection claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Reiter v. Wimes, 263 Neb. 277 (standard that appellate court will not substitute its factual findings where competent evidence supports district court)
- Vinci v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 253 Neb. 423 (de novo review on the record may give weight to hearing officer’s observation of witnesses)
- Whitehead Oil Co. v. City of Lincoln, 245 Neb. 680 (discussion of arbitrary and capricious standard in land-use/zoning context)
- Bauers v. City of Lincoln, 255 Neb. 572 (defining substantive due process property-interest inquiry)
- Teresi v. Filley, 146 Neb. 797 (unauthenticated or uncorroborated testimony may be given little or no weight by factfinders)