Opinion ID: 4213354
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: FCID is a political subdivision created pursuant to the irrigation districts statutes,1 under which FCID is authorized to enter into contracts to supply water for irrigation purposes with any person and with certain organizations within its district.2 According to its petition, FCID uses the revenue from its sale of water to fulfill contractual obligations to the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. FCID is located within the Republican River Basin. The portion of the basin located in Nebraska is divided into three 1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 46-101 et seq. (Reissue 2010 & Cum. Supp. 2016). 2 § 46-1,143. - 1001 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports FRENCHMAN-CAMBRIDGE IRR. DIST. v. DEPT. OF NAT. RES. Cite as 297 Neb. 999 natural resources districts: the Upper Republican Natural Resources District, the Middle Republican Natural Resources District, and the Lower Republican Natural Resources District. Each natural resources district (NRD), along with the other NRD’s in Nebraska, was created by statute3 to develop and conserve the state’s natural resources, including its ground water and surface water.4 In 2004, portions of the Republican River Basin were declared “fully appropriated.”5 When a river basin is determined to be fully appropriated, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 46-715 (Cum. Supp. 2016) of the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act provides that the NRD’s encompassing the basin and the Department of Natural Resources (Department) shall jointly develop an integrated management plan (IMP) to achieve and sustain a balance between water uses and water supplies for the long term. In December 2015, the Republican River Basin NRD’s adopted, and the Department approved, IMP’s that provided for a 20-percent reduction in ground water pumping in the Republican River Basin area. Before these IMP’s were adopted and approved, previous IMP’s provided for a 25-­percent reduction in ground water pumping. Thus, the new IMP’s allow for 5 percent more ground water pumping than the previous ones.6 In January 2016, FCID filed a petition for review under the Administrative Procedure Act,7 challenging the newly approved IMP’s on constitutional and other grounds. In the petition, FCID alleges that the IMP’s violate the U.S. 3 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-3203 (Reissue 2012). 4 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-3229 (Reissue 2012). 5 Frenchman-Cambridge Irr. Dist. v. Dept. of Nat. Res., 281 Neb. 992, 996, 801 N.W.2d 253, 257 (2011). 6 See Kansas v. Nebraska, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1042, 191 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2015). 7 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-901 et seq. (Reissue 2014). - 1002 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports FRENCHMAN-CAMBRIDGE IRR. DIST. v. DEPT. OF NAT. RES. Cite as 297 Neb. 999 Constitution’s Compact Clause,8 Commerce Clause,9 Equal Protection Clause,10 and Due Process Clause,11 as well as provisions of the Nebraska Constitution and the Republican River Compact. As defendants in the suit, FCID listed the Department, the director of the Department, the Republican River Basin NRD’s, and the Attorney General. In March 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to § 6-1112(b)(1) and (6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A hearing on the matter was held on July 14. On November 3, 2016, the district court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss. The district court found that there was subject matter jurisdiction, but dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. From that order, FCID appeals and the defendants cross-appeal. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Although FCID agrees with the district court that it had subject matter jurisdiction, FCID assigns that “the basis on which it found jurisdiction was not completely correct.” FCID also assigns, combined and restated, that the district court erred in finding that its petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and in failing to find that the IMP’s were invalid on constitutional and statutory grounds. The defendants cross-appeal and assign, combined and restated, that the district court erred in finding that FCID had standing, that the court had subject matter jurisdiction, and that the IMP’s are “‘rules and regulations.’” 8 U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 3. 9 Id., § 8, cl. 3. 10 U.S. Const. amend. 14. 11 Id. - 1003 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports FRENCHMAN-CAMBRIDGE IRR. DIST. v. DEPT. OF NAT. RES. Cite as 297 Neb. 999