A letter denying an application to pool ground water from several registered wells, coupled with a copy of that application marked as denied, was not appealable to the district court, because it was not an order as defined in section 46-706. Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD, 319 Neb. 28, 21 N.W.3d 21 (2025).

Although the board considers parties' history of compliance in evaluating eligibility for programs and determining penalties for future violations, without more, those harms are too conjectural and speculative for a party to be "aggrieved" for purposes of this section. Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD, 319 Neb. 1, 21 N.W.3d 34 (2025).

The petitioners were not aggrieved by the findings and conclusions that they violated the rules and regulations and the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act, where the penalties for those violations remained to be determined. Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD, 319 Neb. 1, 21 N.W.3d 34 (2025).

In a review de novo on the record, a district court is not limited to a review subject to the narrow criteria found in section 84-917(6)(a), but is required to make independent factual determinations based upon the record and reach its own independent conclusions with respect to the matters at issue. Medicine Creek v. Middle Republican NRD, 296 Neb. 1, 892 N.W.2d 74 (2017).

Upon an appeal from an order of a natural resources district, a district court reviews the natural resources district's decision de novo on the record of the natural resources district. Medicine Creek v. Middle Republican NRD, 296 Neb. 1, 892 N.W.2d 74 (2017).

Where a natural resources district held a hearing and received formal proof regarding the merits of a request for a variance, its order denying the variance request was judicial in nature and was appealable to the district court. Medicine Creek v. Middle Republican NRD, 296 Neb. 1, 892 N.W.2d 74 (2017).