economic development

Here is the pleading in Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Dept. of Interior (D. Colo.):

19 Tribe’s Opening Brief

Federal Court Denies TRO in Southern Ute Challenge to Fracking Rules

June 23, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Dept. of Interior (D. Colo.):

6-1 Motion for TRO

9 DCT Order Denying TRO

The complaint is here.

Southern Ute Indian Tribe Files Challenge to BLM’s Hydraulic Fracturing Rule

June 22, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the complaint in Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Dept. of Interior (D. Colo.):

1 Complaint

From the tribe’s press release:

Ignacio, Colorado: The Southern Ute Indian Tribe filed suit yesterday in the United States District Court in Denver against the Department of the Interior challenging the Department’s new hydraulic fracturing rule for federal and Indian lands. The suit alleges that the rule conflicts with the Indian Mineral Leasing Act (IMLA) and asks the court to vacate those parts of the rule that violate the IMLA and frustrate the Tribe’s authority over its own lands. “The Tribe values the Reservation environment, but the BLM was overreaching when it enacted this rule for tribal lands. Tribal lands should be treated differently than federal lands,” said Clement J. Frost, the Tribe’s Chairman. “Some of the provisions in this new rule are just burdensome regulations that are not tied to an environmental benefit. This rule is one more regulatory burden that delays energy development on the Reservation and these delays have a very real effect on the Tribe’s ability to provide services and benefits to the tribal membership,” he said.

Tribes are currently authorized by federal regulation to supersede the Secretary’s regulations governing lease operations, and the Tribe has passed its own Hydraulic Fracturing and Chemical Disclosure Regulations. “The BLM’s new rule did not strike the right balance. We can do better,” said Chairman Frost. Bob Zahradnik, Operating Director of the Southern Ute Growth Fund, explained that the Tribe’s regulations vary from the new federal regulations in two important ways: “The Tribe’s regulations provide more protection for aquifers with less bureaucratic morass. It’s a win-win. Our regulations are compatible with Colorado’s regulations, and they also avoid the pre-approval delays that will be caused by BLM’s hydraulic fracturing rule. Those delays put the Tribe in a bad position relative to adjacent fee landowners. If it is too burdensome to do business on tribal lands, operators just take their business elsewhere.”

Tulalip Tribes Sue Washington over Retail Taxes at Quil Ceda

June 15, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Tulalip Tribes v. Smith (W.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

Quil ceda Sales Tax Filing_Press Release

Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Two Shields v. Wilkinson

June 12, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion:

Two Shields Opinion

An excerpt:

Appellants Ramona Two Shields and Mary Louise Defender Wilson are Indians with interests in land allotted to them by the United States under the Dawes Act of 1887. Such land is held in trust by the government, but may be leased by allottees. Two Shields and Defender Wilson leased oil and gas mining rights on their allotments to appellee companies and affiliated individuals who won a sealed bid auction conducted by the Board of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 2007. Subsequent to the auction, appellants agreed to terms with the winning bidders, the BIA approved the leases, and appellees sold them for a large profit. Appellants later filed this putative class action in the District of North Dakota, claiming that the United States had breached its fiduciary duty by approving the leases for the oil and gas mining rights, and that the defendant bidders aided, abetted, and induced the United States to breach that duty. The district court concluded that the United States was a required party which could not be joined, but without which the action could not proceed in equity and good conscience, and dismissed the case. Appellants challenge that dismissal. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Briefs here.