Treuer’s article is titled, Return the National Parks to the Tribes: The jewels of America’s landscape should belong to America’s original peoples.
Here.
Environmental
Ksanka Kupaqa Xaʾⱡȼin Prevails in Rock Creek Mine Challenge
Here are the materials in Ksanka Kupaqa Xaʾⱡȼin v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Mont.):
Traverse City Record-Eagle: “Tribal leaders denounce Enbridge for ‘manipulative’ video about Indigenous peacemaking”
Inuit Ataqatigiit Party Wins Greenland Elections
Here is “China’s Greenland Ambitions Run Into Local Politics, U.S. Influence” [Wall Street Journal].
DailyNous: “Philosopher Named to White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council”
Our good friend Kyle Whyte from U of M and the Citizen Potawatomi Nation! Congrats!
Here.
Here is the White House announcement.
Laguna and Jemez Pueblos Sue EPA over Clean Water Act Rules
Here is the complaint in Pueblo of Laguna v. Regan (D.N.M.):
An excerpt:
13. The Agencies repealed the 2015 Clean Water Rule and then reversed their longstanding policy by promulgating a new, much narrower interpretation of the “waters of the United States.” Definition of “Waters of the United States” — Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules, 84 Fed. Reg. 56,626 (Oct. 22, 2019) [hereinafter the 2019 Repeal Rule]; The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States,” 85 Fed. Reg. 22,250 (Apr. 21, 2020) [hereinafter the 2020 Navigable Waters Rule]. The 2020 Navigable Waters Rule follows the directive of Executive Order 13,778, but without due regard for established law.
14. The 2019 Repeal Rule and 2020 Navigable Waters Rule are inconsistent with both the CWA’s objective of “maintain[ing] the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” and the Rapanos significant nexus test.
15. The 2019 Repeal Rule and the 2020 Navigable Waters Rule harm the Pueblos by removing federal CWA water pollution protections from many of the ephemeral streams and other waterbodies that sustain the Pueblos. These rules remove CWA protections from 79% to 97% of stream miles in the Pueblo of Laguna. These rules remove CWA protections from 94% of stream miles in the Jemez watershed and 87% of stream miles on Jemez Pueblo trust lands.
16. Where a waterbody is not determined to be a “water of the United States,” the Pueblos alone are left to establish and administer water pollution control programs at their own expense.17. However, the Pueblos rely on the Agencies to implement nearly all of the CWA’s pollution programs on their behalf and do not have the financial or administrative resources or capacity to administer these programs themselves.
18. Further, both Pueblos rely on the federal jurisdiction of the CWA to protect themselves from upstream pollution.
19. For the Pueblos, high water quality is essential to day-to-day life, as well as
cultural and religious practices.20. The removal of federal jurisdiction creates the imminent risk of the degradation and destruction of the Pueblos’ waters and would harm the Pueblos’ agriculture, as well as cultural and religious practices.
Federal Court Dismisses Contract Claim involving Mechoopda Cultural Resource Preservation Enterprise [Butte County Camp Fire Clean-up]
Here are the materials in Engasser v. Tetra Tech Inc. (C.D. Cal.):
Circle of Blue: “Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History”
Here.
Christiana Ochoa on the Rights of Nature
Christiana Ochoa has posted “Nature’s Rights,” forthcoming in the Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law, on SSRN.
The abstract:
Do forests and rivers possess standing to sue? Do mountain ranges have substantive rights? A recent issue of The Judges’ Journal, a preeminent publication for American judges, alerts the bench, bar, and policymakers to the rapidly emerging “rights of nature,” predicting that state and federal courts will increasingly see claims asserting such rights. Within the United States, Tribal law has begun to legally recognize the rights of rivers, mountains, and other natural features. Several municipalities across the United States have also acted to recognize the rights of nature. United States courts have not yet addressed the issue, though in 2017, a Colorado District Court dismissed a suit claiming rights for the Colorado River ecosystem. Meanwhile, fourteen foreign countries have extended standing and substantive rights to nature, and that number is growing quickly. This international trend matters because U.S. Supreme Court Justices, including Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, have argued that American courts should note and address cutting-edge legal developments in foreign jurisdictions.
This Article provides the key foundational and theoretical basis for recognizing the rights of nature. It explores the intellectual and precedential basis for accepting nature’s rights, surveying developments in the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities, and providing the only comprehensive survey of all legal systems that currently recognize such rights. It traces the geographic, theoretical, and practical development of the idea of nature’s rights, illustrating that human thought regarding the intrinsic value and rights of nature has evolved significantly since our common law on the issue was established. This Article thus provides the intellectual, moral, and philosophical grounding for students, clerks, judges, and lawmakers facing questions about extending rights to nature.
Sho-Ban Tribes Bring CERCLA Complaint against Polluter
Here is the complaint in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. P4 Production LLC (D. Idaho):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.