Environmental – Page 22

Laguna and Jemez Pueblos Sue EPA over Clean Water Act Rules

March 30, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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 The Agencies repealed the 2015 Clean Water Rule and then reversed their longstanding policy by promulgating a new, much narrower interpretation of the “waters of the United States.”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]

March 15, 2021March 14, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Engasser v. Tetra Tech Inc. (C.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

21 Third Party Complaint

30-1 Tribe Motion to Dismiss

34-1 Tribe Motion to Dismiss

36 Tetra Tech Opposition

37 Tribe Reply

49 DCT Order

Circle of Blue: “Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History”

March 13, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Christiana Ochoa on the Rights of Nature

March 12, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

March 8, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. P4 Production LLC (D. Idaho):

2 Complaint

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Pueblo of Jemez v. United States [Valles Caldera]

March 3, 2021February 4, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Jemez Pueblo brief sealed

Indian Advocacy Groups Amicus Brief

Indian Law Profs Amicus Brief

Pueblo Nations Amicus Brief

US Response Brief

Gas Company Brief

Lower court materials here.

USDA Pulls Environmental Impact Statement on Oak Flat/Resolution Copper Mine [updated with CA9 Order Denying Stay Pending Appeal]

March 2, 2021March 10, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the press release from Rep. Raúl Grijalva on the matter. Gizmodo coverage here.

And the briefs in Apache Stronghold v. United States (9th Cir.):

Emergency Motion

Federal Opposition

Religious Groups Amicus Brief

Religious Liberty Scholars Amicus Brief

Tribal Amicus Brief

Lower court materials here.

Update:

CA9 Order Denying Stay

Oregon Court Affirms Klamath Tribes’ Water Rights

February 28, 2021Matthew Campbell

On Wednesday, February 24, 2021, in an order from Klamath County Circuit Court Judge Cameron F. Wogan, the Oregon court again affirmed the Klamath Tribes’ water and treaty rights. Wednesday’s order rejected attacks on the Tribes’ water rights determined by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) during the administrative phase of the Klamath Basin Adjudication (KBA), affirmed the senior priority date of the Klamath Tribes’ water rights in the Klamath Basin, and upheld the need to maintain a healthy and productive habitat to meet the Tribes’ treaty right to fish, hunt, trap, and gather.

Klamath Tribes Chairman Don Gentry responded to the order, “We are pleased that Judge Wogan upheld the rulings from the administrative phase of the KBA. He reaffirmed that the 1864 treaty entered into between the Klamath Tribes and the United States reserved to the Tribes sufficient water to keep our fisheries and other aquatic resources healthy so that we can protect our natural resources and cultural traditions.”

NARF Staff Attorney Sue Noe explained, “Judge Wogan correctly affirmed quantification of the Tribal water rights based on the habitat needs of the fish, wildlife, and plants. Although he ruled that opponents of the Tribal rights will have another chance to try to reduce the amounts by showing the Tribes don’t need all the water awarded by OWRD to meet their livelihood needs, Judge Wogan made clear in no uncertain terms that the amounts cannot be below what is necessary to provide healthy and productive habitat.”

Importantly, like all other courts that have considered the issue, Judge Wogan ruled that the Klamath Tribes’ water rights extend to Upper Klamath Lake. Upper Klamath Lake forms part of the border of the former Reservation and provides critical habitat for the endangered c’waam and koptu (Lost River and shortnose sucker fish), which are sacred fish species traditionally harvested by the Tribes.

Represented by NARF, the Klamath Tribes successfully achieved recognition of their treaty-reserved water rights in federal court litigation in the 1970s and 1980s in United States v. Adair, but the federal courts left quantification of the water rights to the state adjudication in the KBA. After the successful conclusion of the KBA’s 38-year administrative phase, the Tribes were able to begin enforcing their water rights for the first time in 2013. The administrative determinations are presently on review in the Klamath County Circuit Court and Judge Wogan’s ruling is the latest to come out of that process.