Defining “Order” Under the NGWMPA: Quasi-Judicial Proceedings as a Prerequisite for Appeal

Introduction

In Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD, 319 Neb. 28 (2025), the Nebraska Supreme Court addressed whether a routine denial letter from a Natural Resources District (“NRD”)—refusing to pool groundwater from several registered wells—qualifies as an “order” under the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act (“NGWMPA”) and thus is appealable under § 46-750. Bryan and Ami Hauxwell, who irrigate farmland within the Middle Republican NRD, challenged that denial on statutory and constitutional grounds. The key legal issue: must an “order” under the NGWMPA arise from a quasi-judicial or contested proceeding to be appealable?

Case Background

• Parties:
  • Appellants: Bryan and Ami Hauxwell, Nebraska farmers.
  • Appellees: Middle Republican Natural Resources District (the “NRD”), its chairperson, and its general manager.
• Factual Context:
  • Hauxwells sought board approval to pool groundwater from several wells for the 2023–2027 allocation period.
  • The NRD board met, voted to deny the application under NRD rule 6-1.12, and the general manager sent a letter marked “Denied.”
• Procedural History:
  • The Hauxwells filed a petition for review in Frontier County District Court under NGWMPA § 46-750 and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), claiming the denial was arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional.
  • The NRD moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the denial letter was not a “final decision in a contested case” under the APA and not an “order” under the NGWMPA.
  • The district court granted dismissal, ruling no contested case or quasi-judicial order existed.
  • Hauxwells appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, albeit on slightly different grounds than the district court.
• It held that under NGWMPA § 46-706(26), an “order” must either:
  1. Be issued in a quasi-judicial or contested proceeding (with hearings, evidence, official record); or
  2. Be statutorily or regulatory mandated and issued by board vote in a formal session.
• The denial letter—issued by the general manager after a board vote in a routine business meeting—lacked the formal record, hearing, or adjudicatory features of a true “order.”
• Because it did not constitute an appealable “order,” the courts lacked jurisdiction under § 46-750 and the APA.
• The Court did not reach the merits of the Hauxwells’ other claims (affidavit exclusion, fee motions, etc.).

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Purdie v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs. (2016): APA review requires a “contested case” with formal hearing procedures.
• Dodge County Humane Soc. v. City of Fremont (2023): A city council’s administrative termination letter was not a quasi-judicial order, thus unappealable under petition-in-error statute.
• Cases establishing that natural resources districts are not “agencies” under the APA (Lingenfelter v. Lower Elkhorn NRD, 2016).

2. Legal Reasoning

• Statutory Construction:
  • NGWMPA § 46-750 grants appeal rights from “any order” of a natural resources district, “in accordance with the APA.”
  • NGWMPA § 46-706(26) defines “order” to “include” board-adopted decisions and statutorily required directives—but “includes” is not exhaustive.
• Term-of-Art Meaning of “Order”:
  • Under Black’s Law Dictionary and civil procedure (§ 25-914), an “order” is a court-like determination on a procedural or collateral matter in a formal record.
  • “Judgment,” by contrast, is a final disposition of rights. “Order” implies procedural safeguards: evidence, hearing, due process.
• Application to This Case:
  • The denial letter had none of these features—no hearing record, no written findings by the board, no contested-case format.
  • It was an administrative communication, not a quasi-judicial order or a statutorily mandated directive.
• Jurisdictional Conclusion:
  • Because the letter was not an “order” under the NGWMPA’s definition or term-of-art meaning, § 46-750 could not confer appellate jurisdiction.
  • Without a proper order, the district and supreme courts lacked jurisdiction to review the denial.

3. Impact

This decision tightens the scope of appealable actions under the NGWMPA. Future groundwater applicants must obtain a formal, quasi-judicial order—complete with hearings and an official record—if they wish to preserve the right to judicial review. Routine administrative refusals (e.g., letters from a general manager) remain within the NRD’s discretion and are insulated from direct appeal. The ruling reinforces separation of powers by ensuring courts review only adjudicatory decisions, not general policy or administrative acts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Contested Case (APA): An administrative trial with evidence, testimony, and a formal record—akin to a courtroom hearing.
• Quasi-Judicial vs. Administrative Acts:
  • Quasi-Judicial: Formal decision-making (hearings, due process, written findings).
  • Administrative: Routine business communications or policy exercises without judicial features.
• “Includes” vs. “Means” in Statutes: “Includes” introduces examples but does not limit to an exhaustive list.

Conclusion

Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD clarifies that under the NGWMPA, only orders with judicial or statutorily-mandated formality qualify for appeal. A simple denial letter, even if adopted by board vote, does not meet the term-of-art or enumerated definitions of an “order.” As a result, the courts correctly dismissed the Hauxwells’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This ruling underscores the importance of formal adjudicatory procedures when seeking to invoke judicial review of natural-resources decisions in Nebraska.