Report on Washington Plan to Change Its Water Pollution Levels

Here’s the press release:

New Report Documents Threat to Tribal Treaty Rights and Environmental Justice

(Seattle) – The Washington State Department of Ecology is soon expected to propose new, higher, default fish consumption rates (FCRs) used to calculate allowable levels of contaminants dumped into state waters by industrial polluters. A new report from Borderlands Research and Education documents how big business and conservative and far right groups are opposing increased FCRs, threatening tribal treaty rights, environmental justice and ecological health in the state.

The report, No Justice on the Plate: Transnational Companies and the Right Oppose Fish Consumption Justice and Tribal Treaty Rights, explains how major companies and business associations are opposing higher FCRs by attacking the environmental justice principle that public policy should end disproportionate environmental impacts on communities of color. In Washington State, this includes Indian Nations and Asian and Pacific Islander communities that consume large quantities of fish. Low FCRs also affect recreational fishers in the state more than the general public.

“This effort by big business and the right poses a threat to tribal treaty rights, community health, and environmental justice,” said Borderlands Research and Education co-coordinator Chuck Tanner. “It affects us all by threatening to keep water quality in the state degraded.”

No Justice on the Plate describes how conservatives, libertarians and the far right have joined big business in opposing higher FCRs and environmental justice. The report details troubling actions of opponents of higher FCRs, including former Attorney General Rob McKenna’s alliance with far right anti-Indian leaders; the Washington Policy Center and Freedom Foundation’s opposition to tribal sovereignty; the Enumclaw-based Citizens Alliance for Property Rights’ promotion of far right conspiracy theories and outright rejection of environmental justice.

“This report addresses a critical issue for treaty and civil rights in Washington State,” said Devin Burghart, Vice-President of the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights. “And it looks at how environmental issues, and a narrow vision of property rights, can foster a convergence between big business, conservatives and the far right.”

The report is available from the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights at http://www.irehr.org/news/special-reports/580-no-justice-on-the-plate.

Elizabeth Kronk Warner on Lessons from the Tribal Environmental Laboratory

Elizabeth Kronk Warner has posted “Justice Brandeis and Indian Country: Lessons from the Tribal Environmental Laboratory” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Justice Brandeis first famously wrote of a system of federalism where states would serve as laboratories of regulatory experimentation, allowing other states and the federal government to benefit from successful regulatory experiments. Although likely beyond the contemplation of Brandeis, tribes, as separate sovereigns existing within the United States, are well-placed to experiment in new and interesting ways. In particular, given their unique connection to the land and the intensified threat of some modern environmental challenges, many tribes are already engaged in regulatory innovation related to environmental law. This is the first scholarly work to fully develop the idea of tribes as “laboratories” for examining environmental law, demonstrating that tribal experimentation can generate the same benefits typically ascribed to the system of federalism. This is also the first article to examine how tribes are already innovating in areas of environmental law outside of tribal codes. The article begins with an examination of federalism and the benefits, such as states as laboratories, typically attributed to the system of federalism. Having provided an introduction, the article then explains how federalism itself is not required to achieve the benefits associated with it, arguing that tribal regulatory experimentation can yield similar results. Next, the article establishes the modern-day need for environmental regulatory experimentation given the lack of innovation occurring at the federal level. And, finally, the article takes a deep look into forms of tribal environmental law related to the regulation of environmental pollution and climate change other than code provisions. Such an examination is particularly helpful given the potential for governments to use such legal tools to fill existing regulatory gaps and the ease with which innovations in this field can be diffused amongst other governments. Having considered these other forms of tribal environmental laws, the article then develops some initial thoughts of how tribes, the states and the federal government may benefit from innovations occurring within the tribal environmental laboratory. Tribal environmental law is particularly exciting given its ability to transcend federal and state environmental law. This section of the article then ends with a call for additional tribal environmental innovation within this area. Ultimately, the article concludes that, by enacting environmental laws to meet their unique tribal needs, many tribes are creating and innovating in the field under their unique powers as separate sovereigns within the United States.

Federal Court Rules in Favor of Interior and Lower Klamath River Tribes in Water Dispute

Here are the materials in San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Jewell (E.D. Cal.):

95 First Amended Complaint

113 Water Districts Motion for Summary J

116 Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman Opposition

118 Hoopa Opposition

119 Yurok Opposition

120-1 US Opposition

122 California Amicus Opposition

125 Water Districts Reply

132 Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen Reply

133 Hoopa Reply

134 Yurok Reply

135 US Reply 

175 DCT Order

News coverage here: “Judge won’t stop emergency water releases helping Klamath Basin salmon.”

UPDATE 10/8/14:

181 DCT Order on Cross Motions for Summary J

NYTs: “Rarest Native Animals Find Haven on Tribal Lands”

Here.

Michigan Court of Appeals Affirms Mining and Groundwater Discharge Permits at Eagle Mine

Mining Permit decision here.

This case reflects the attempt to balance the potentially conflicting imperatives of exploiting a great economic opportunity and protecting the environment, natural resources, and public health. At issue is appellee Kennecott Eagle’s proposal to develop an underground mine to extract nickel and copper from the sulfide ores beneath the headwaters of the Salmon Trout River in the Yellow Dog Plains in Marquette County.

Groundwater Discharge permit decision here.

The court found the balance on the side of the underground mine. The state decision makers have managed to find at least three alternative grounds for not considering Eagle Rock a place of worship.

News article here.

Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams — Uranium Mining Dispute

Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams (D. Ariz.):

71 Federal Motion to Dismiss

120 Havasupai Response

123 Federal Reply

126 Grand Canyon Trust Response

131 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

Earlier post on this matter here.

News Profile of Sebastian Braun’s Study of Impacts of Fracking at Fort Berthold

Here is “Chronicling the oil boom: UND professors map dramatic changes to western ND landscape.”

Links to several maps are available here.

 

Tenth Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA Decision re Four Corners Power Plant at Navajo

Here is the opinion in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA.

Briefs are here.

Jamulians CEQA Complaint

Here is the complaint in Jamulians Against the Casino v. California Wildlife Conservation Board (Cal. Super.):

Jamulians Complaint

Canadian Supreme Court Rules Against Grassy Narrows First Nation

Decision here.

The central question on this appeal is whether Ontario has the power to take up lands in the Keewatin area under Treaty 3 so as to limit the harvesting rights under the treaty, or whether this is subject to Canada’s approval.

                    Ontario and only Ontario has the power to take up lands under Treaty 3. This is confirmed by constitutional provisions, the interpretation of the treaty, and legislation dealing with Treaty 3 lands.

                    First, although Treaty 3 was negotiated by the federal government, it is an agreement between the Ojibway and the Crown. Both levels of government are responsible for fulfilling the treaty promises when acting within the division of powers under the Constitution. Sections 109 , 92(5)  and 92A  of the Constitution Act, 1867  establish conclusively that Ontario holds the beneficial interest in the Keewatin lands and has exclusive power to manage and sell those lands as well as to make laws in relation to the resources on or under those lands. Together, these provisions give Ontario the power to take up lands in the Keewatin area under Treaty 3 for provincially regulated purposes such as forestry. Further; s. 91(24) of that same Act does not give Canada the authority to take up provincial land for exclusively provincial purposes.

                    Second, nothing in the text or history of the negotiation of Treaty 3 suggests that a two‑step process requiring federal supervision or approval was intended. The text of the taking‑up clause supports the view that the right to take up land rests with the level of government that has jurisdiction under the Constitution. The reference in the treaty to Canada merely reflects the fact that the lands at the time were in Canada, not Ontario.

                    Lastly, legislation subsequent to the signature of the treaty and which dealt with Treaty 3 lands confirmed Ontario’s right to take up that land by virtue of its control and beneficial ownership of the territory. It did not amend the terms of Treaty 3.