Environmental – Page 95

NPR on Brazil’s Surui Tribe

March 28, 2013Adrea Korthase

Here. An excerpt:

Chief Almir Surui, 38, has built alliances with American technology companies, environmental groups and lawmakers in the capital, Brasilia, and in cities far beyond Brazil. And the Surui reserve, called Seventh of September for the date in 1969 when the outside world made its first sustained contact with the tribe, has become a hotbed of technology designed to protect the jungle.

The Indians use smartphones to monitor illegal logging and Google Earth Outreach to show the world what their reserve is like.

“Our model calls for saving the forest and fighting for sustainable development,” says Chief Almir, as he stands in the middle of the forest surrounded by chirping birds and many species of trees. “It’s a challenge because it’s very important to do all this. But other countries do not always pursue responsible policies.”

Opening Brief in Oklahoma Challenge to EPA Clean Air Act Determination re Tribal Authority

March 28, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opening brief in Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality v. EPA (D.C. Cir.):

Oklahoma DEQ Opening Brief

Supreme Court Denies Cert in New 49ers v. Karuk Tribe

March 18, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order list for today.

And the briefs are here.

Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobile Cert Petition

March 14, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Native Village of Kivalina Cert Petition

Question presented:

Petitioners Native Village of Kivalina and the City of Kivalina, a federally-recognized tribe and an Alaskan municipality, are the governing bodies of an Inupiat village located on an Arctic barrier island that is being destroyed by global warming. Greenhouse gases have caused the Earth’s temperature to rise, especially in the Arctic, which has melted the land-fast sea ice that protects the village from powerful oceanic storms. Kivalina is thus now exposed to erosion and flooding from the sea and must relocate or face imminent destruction.

Petitioners seek damages — not injunctive relief–from the largest U.S. sources of greenhouses gases under the federal common law of public nuisance. In American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (“AEP”), 131 S. Ct. 2527 (2011), the Court dismissed a federal common law claim for injunctive relief, holding that the Clean Air Act displaces “any federal common law right to seek abatement” of emissions because the Clean Air Act “provides a means to seek limits on emissions [2] of carbon dioxide from domestic power plants — the same relief the plaintiffs seek by invoking federal common law.” AEP, 131 S. Ct. at 2537, 2538 (emphasis added).

The question presented is: Whether the Clean Air Act, which provides no damages remedy to persons harmed by greenhouse gas emissions, displaces federal common-law claims for damages.

Lower court materials here.

Havasupai Tribe, Conservation Groups Challenge Uranium Mine Threatening Grand Canyon

March 11, 2013Matthew Campbell1 Comment

The complaint can be seen here. The Center for Biological Diversity’s News Release can be seen here.

A snippet of the complaint:

After initial approval of the Canyon Mine, the Forest Service formally designated Red Butte and surrounding areas as a Traditional Cultural Property. This designation means Red Butte is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the definition of a “historic property” under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The Forest Service also recognized that Red Butte is a sacred site to the Havasupai Tribe. The Forest Service’s 1986 approvals did not analyze the Canyon Mine’s potential effects to Red Butte as a historic property under the NHPA. The Forest Service recently commenced consultation with the Havasupai Tribe concerning the Canyon Mine’s impacts to Red Butte, and claims that it intends to continue consultation. The Forest Service is refusing to undertake and complete a NHPA Section 106 Process relating to adverse impacts to the Red Butte TCP, including consulting with the Tribe for the purposes of developing a Memorandum of Agreement, prior to allowing Canyon Mine to restart mining operations, as required under NHPA and its regulations, 16 U.S.C. § 470f, 36 C.F.R § 800.13(b)(1).

Brian Pierson on Wisconsin Indian Treaty Rights and Proposed Mining Activities

March 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here.

An excerpt:

The Wisconsin Legislature has approved amendments to Wisconsin law intended to pave the way for Gogebic Taconite to mine iron ore in the Penokee Hills of Ashland County. Wisconsin’s tribes have been outspoken in their opposition. The Bad River Chippewa, whose reservation lies directly in the path of any mine runoff, has been especially vocal.

The six Chippewa tribes have asserted that their treaties with the federal government give them special status and entitle their concerns to greater weight. They are right.

By the 1842 treaty at La Pointe, the Chippewa ceded to the United States approximately 12 million acres, including the Penokee Hills, receiving in return an amount that the Indian Claims Commission later called “unconscionable.” A treaty, the Supreme Court observed in United States vs. Winans, is “not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of right from them – a reservation of those not granted.” In the 1842 treaty, the Chippewa reserved “usufructuary” rights in the territory they ceded, including the right to hunt, fish, trap, harvest wild rice and engage in other activities to make a living from the land.

Federal Court Refuses to Allow N. Arapaho Tribe to Add Establishment Clause Claim to Eagle Act Regulatory Dispute

March 4, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the new materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Ashe (D. Wyo.):

DCT Order Denying Motion

N. Arapaho Motion to File Second Amended Complaint

USFWS Opposition

N. Arapaho Reply

An excerpt:

With these principles in mind, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion because they waited too long to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs knew or should have known the facts underlying an Establishment Clause claim when they filed their amended complaint nearly a year ago. And Plaintiffs undoubtedly knew about the Establishment Clause claim by May 31, 2012, because on that date they filed a memorandum stating that “[d]efendants’ denial of the [tribe’s] permit application creates Establishment Clause problems.” Pls.’ Mem. 14 n.19, ECF No. 30. Yet Plaintiffs waited over eight months from the time they clearly knew about the Establishment Clause claim to file the present motion. That’s simply too long a wait. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint (ECF No. 59) based on undue delay.

Our prior post on this case is here.