Due Process in NRD Adjudications: Presumption of Impartiality and Procedural Safeguards

Introduction

Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD, 319 Neb. 1 (2025), is a landmark decision of the Nebraska Supreme Court clarifying the contours of procedural due process in administrative hearings conducted by Natural Resources Districts (NRDs). In a multi-year dispute over groundwater allocation, the Court addressed whether prior involvement of NRD counsel and management in deliberations tainted subsequent hearings and required vacation of penalties. The parties—farmers Bryan and Ami Hauxwell (appellees) and the Middle Republican NRD with its board, general manager, and counsel (appellants)—clashed over irrigation practices, notice, internal communications, and the proper separation of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions.

Summary of the Judgment

The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Frontier County district court’s order vacating penalties imposed on the Hauxwells. The district court had found that the NRD’s counsel and general manager improperly participated in deliberations of the NRD Board in August 2020, thereby “tainting” subsequent hearings in 2021 and 2022. The Supreme Court held that:

The district court lacked jurisdiction to disturb the 2021 administrative findings because they were not final, appealable orders (penalties were reserved for a later hearing).
The alleged due process violation stemmed from participation at the 2020 hearing only; in 2021 and 2022, NRD counsel and management did not sit in on deliberations.
Under the presumption of administrative impartiality and prevailing precedents, prior contact or internal communications do not irrevocably close decision-makers’ minds unless the prosecutor remains part of the adjudicative body.
The Frontier County court’s decision was reversed and the cause remanded with directions to address the Hauxwells’ other statutory and procedural challenges.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Uhrich & Brown Ltd. Part. v. Middle Republican NRD (2023): Held that administrative counsel may not simultaneously prosecute and adjudicate a single hearing. That dual role offends due process because advocacy and adjudication demands divergent loyalties.
Trade Comm’n v. Cement Institute (1948): U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prior public statements by Commissioners did not automatically disqualify them unless they continued to sit in the adjudicative role.
Pangburn v. C. A. B. (1962): First Circuit affirmed that a tribunal’s prior fact-finding or public position does not alone establish unconstitutional bias unless the same individuals remain involved in deciding the contested matter.
Administrative Procedure Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 84-901 to 84-920) and Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act (§§ 46-701 to 46-756): Provide the framework for appeal and judicial review of NRD orders.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three major steps:

Jurisdiction over Appeals: The 2021 board decision reserving penalty determinations was not “final” under § 25-1902(1) because it left a substantive issue—penalties—open for later hearing. Thus no appeal lay. Likewise, NRD decisions after remand under APA § 84-917(5)(a) need not be refiled with the district court unless the remand “is for consideration of issues not previously raised,” which did not occur here.
Scope of Due Process Violation: Only the August 2020 hearing featured NRD counsel and the general manager present during board deliberations. Subsequent hearings in 2021 and 2022 were conducted by a hearing officer who explicitly excluded counsel and staff. The mere fact that some board members remained on the panel and internal emails demonstrated a desire to “squash” the Hauxwells did not overcome the strong presumption of judicial and administrative integrity.
Presumption of Impartiality vs. Actual Bias: Under Nebraska and federal precedents, due process questions focus on whether an “average judge in his or her position” is likely neutral. Absent ongoing combined adjudicative and prosecutorial roles, prior expressions of opinion do not automatically disqualify a tribunal. If prior contact “irrevocably closed” administrators’ minds, no small-town or resource-limited entity could ever conduct its mandated duties.

Impact

Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD clarifies that:

Natural Resources Districts are entitled to a presumption of impartiality; a one-time overlapping of prosecutorial and deliberative functions does not forever taint every subsequent hearing.
NRDs do not become “agencies” under the APA, but groundwater enforcement appeals invoke APA review standards.
Finality remains central: orders leaving penalties for later hearing are non-appealable.
Future challenges to NRD proceedings must show continued or repeated role-combination or actual bias in the contested hearing.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Final Order: An order that settles all issues so there is nothing left to decide. If an NRD board finds a violation but says “we’ll set penalties later,” the finding alone is not final.
Due Process in Administration: You have the right to fair notice and a fair decision-maker. Think of it as the same basic protections you get in court, but slightly more flexible because agencies have fewer resources.
Prosecutorial vs. Adjudicative Role: A prosecutor’s job is to argue for one side; an adjudicator’s job is to decide neutrally. They cannot wear both hats in the same hearing.
Presumption of Honesty: Judges and agency decision-makers start with the benefit of the doubt—they are presumed unbiased unless shown otherwise.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD reaffirms that procedural due process requires an adequate separation between the roles of advocate and decision-maker, but it does not impose eternal disqualification for a single procedural misstep. NRDs retain a presumption of impartiality, and only continued or repeated combination of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions within the same hearing will violate due process. This judgment will guide future groundwater enforcement appeals, emphasizing both the need for fair procedures and the practical realities of local administrative governance.