## Facts

- United Plainsmen Association, a nonprofit environmental organization, sued the North Dakota State Water Conservation Commission and the State Engineer.
- The suit sought to enjoin issuance of additional water permits for power and energy facilities until the State completed a comprehensive water plan allegedly required by state law and the public trust doctrine.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a dismissal with prejudice of a complaint seeking injunctive relief is an appealable order under N.D. Cent. Code § 28-27-02(3).
2. Whether the complaint stated a claim that state water statutes and the public trust doctrine impose enforceable planning duties that can limit permit issuance.

## Decision

- The order was appealable because dismissing with prejudice a complaint requesting an injunction effectively refuses an injunction under N.D. Cent. Code § 28-27-02(3).
- The court applied the rule that dismissal is improper unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiffs can prove no set of facts entitling them to relief, accepting well-pleaded allegations as true.
- Plaintiffs’ statutory theory—that planning provisions (including N.D. Cent. Code § 61-01-22(4)) can be read to require comprehensive planning before issuing permits—was sufficient at the pleading stage.
- Plaintiffs’ public trust theory also stated a cognizable basis for judicial review of alleged mismanagement of public water resources.
- The dismissal was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
- The supreme court declined to issue a temporary restraining order, leaving injunctive relief to be addressed on a developed record in the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- An order dismissing with prejudice a complaint that seeks an injunction is appealable as an effective refusal to grant an injunction under N.D. Cent. Code § 28-27-02(3).
- On a motion to dismiss, courts accept well-pleaded facts as true and construe them favorably to the plaintiff; dismissal is improper unless no facts could support relief.
- Statutory provisions assigning resource-planning responsibilities to administrative officials may supply judicially enforceable duties, depending on statutory construction and proof.
- The public trust doctrine can provide standards for reviewing state actions affecting public water resources and can support claims alleging breach of trustee obligations.
- Claims framed as failures to perform legally mandated planning and trust duties are generally justiciable even when the challenged decisions involve policy choices.

## Conclusion

The North Dakota Supreme Court held the dismissal order was appealable and that the environmental plaintiffs plausibly alleged statutory and public trust duties requiring water-resource planning before further permitting, warranting reversal and remand for merits proceedings without appellate injunctive relief.


United Plainsmen Ass'n v. N.D. State Water Conservation Comm'n, 247 N.W.2d 457 (N.D. 1976)