New Scholarship on Fracking Near Indian Country

Heather Williams and Hillary M. Hoffman have posted “Fracking Near Indian Country: The Federal Trust Relationship, Tribal Sovereignty, and the Right to Clean Water,” forthcoming in the Wyoming Law Review, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

The tortured history of the federal and state governments’ relationships with Native American tribes has created a legal structure in which Native American people are, quite frequently, the recipients of non-native waste generated off of native lands. Traditionally, this has taken the form of solid waste, but in recent years, it has grown to include nuclear waste and wastewater generated by hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as “flowback fluids”, or “produced water.”

Over the last two years, produced water from four different hydraulic fracturing operations was found being discharged onto dry land and into “streambeds covered in white crystals,” on the Wind River Reservation in central Wyoming. In addition to the open dumping of these fluids, there was also visible oil and foam sheen. Pollution events like these are the result of a regulatory exemption under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), commonly referred to as the “livestock loophole.” The livestock loophole, created in 1979, allows oil and gas operations to discharge hazardous waste fluids generated from fracking operations onto reservation land if they are consumed by livestock and wildlife, or used for agricultural purposes. The EPA, which regulates RCRA and has a fiduciary responsibility toward Indian Tribes, has not set maximum levels for many compounds used in the drilling process, and uses antiquated data to regulate toxics that have been capped. Further, industrial “trade secrets” prohibit the disclosure of additional toxics in drilling fluids under intellectual property laws, making it impossible to regulate pollution limits for surface waters under the Clean Water Act’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

The policy behind the livestock loophole is complex. Reports of gushing streams of toxic fracking fluids on reservation land reek of environmental injustice, yet tribes, as sovereign governments, are willing, able, and informed participants in the solicitation, installation, and placement of non-native waste on their own tribal lands.

Several questions arise out of the issues faced by the Wind River tribes: Is the federal policy to dump fracking fluids in Indian country consistent with its federal trust obligation, and its requirement under RCRA to protect human health and safety from toxic compounds? Is the livestock loophole’s policy to feed fracking fluids to livestock, wildlife, and agriculture a legitimate beneficial use under the Prior Appropriation doctrine? Should the EPA be forced to conduct up-to-date studies on the compounds in produced water, and their effects on living organisms, including humans? This Article will answer those questions and explore the bounds of tribal sovereignty and the federal trust responsibility in the context of produced water from fracking operations.

WaPo Article on Wyoming’s Fight against the EPA and Tribal Sovereignty

Here.

Report of the Commission on Indian Trust Administration and Reform

Here.

 

Federal Court Rejects Alturas Effort to Force US to Pay Contract Support Costs

Here are the materials in Alturas Indian Rancheria v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.):

129 Alturas Motion for Contempt

137 US Opposition

139 Alturas Reply

140 US Supplemental Brief

142 DCT Order Denying Motion

An excerpt:

This is a proceeding brought by plaintiff Indian tribe to determine whether the government is in contempt of the court’s January 13, 2012 order in this case (ECF No 126). Plaintiff asserts that the following portion of the court’s order required the government to pay “contract support costs” associated with the “self-determination” contracts it entered into with plaintiff:

The BIA has approved the Tribe’s selfdetermination contract requests for the fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, and shall transfer the amounts provided in those requests to the Tribe’s bank account … in accordance with the terms contained in the contract award documents.

Order of January 13, 2012, ECF No. 126 ¶ 2 (“Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Order”).

For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s request to enforce the judgment or for a contempt order will be denied.

Our prior post on this case includes materials on the court’s original denial of the government’s motion to dismiss.

Hopi Tribe Objection to Interior’s Intention to Enforce Stricter Air Quality Standards at Navajo without Hopi’s Input

Here:

Hopi Letter to Secretary of the Interior

An excerpt:

On September 4, 2013, the Hopi Tribe (“Tribe”) wrote to you expressing its serious concerns regarding the Department oflnterior’s (“DOl”) decision to join with the Salt River Project (“SRP”) and others to develop and endorse a proposed Altemative (“SRP- Altemative”) to the pending EPA rulemaking that would set stricter air quality standards and require the Best Available Retrofit Technology (“BART”) for the Navajo Generating Station (“NOS”), a coalfired power plant located on the Navajo Reservation in northeastern Arizona. In our letter, we also informed you that the Tribe would be hosting DOl attomey, Letty Belin, for a meeting (on September 5, 2013) that she had requested in order to discuss the proposed SRP-Altemative to the EPA rule, including the Tribe’s exclusion from  the process. As a result of the Tribe’s meeting with Ms. Belin, the Tribe now has greater  concerns regarding DOl’s explanations for its decision to exclude the Hopi Tribe from the  process and its support of the proposed SRPAlternative. Rather than satisfying the  concerns expressed by the Tribe, Ms. Belin’s explanation of the basis for DOl’s decisions  merely senred to underscore DOI’s disregard of the Tribe’s interests as a major  stakeholder in this matter and its violation of the trust responsibility it owes to the Hopi Tribe.

Briefing Complete in Federal Motion to Dismiss Sand Creek Claims

Here are the briefs in Flute v. United States (D. Colo.):

US Motion to Dismiss

Flute Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

US Reply

The complaint is here.

More Complaints against Indian Health Service over Contract Support Costs

Here:

Seldovia Village Tribe v. US

Suquamish Indian Tribe v. US

Indian Law and Order Commission Report Released Today

News coverage here.

20131112-072415.jpg

Southcentral Foundation Effort to Force IHS to Fund Suicide Prevention and Other Programs Fails

Here are the materials in Southcentral Foundation v. Roubideaux (D. Alaska):

5 Motion for PI

17 IHS Opposition

27 Reply

37 DCT Order Denying Motion

An excerpt:

Before the Court at Docket 3 is a motion filed by Plaintiff Southcentral Foundation (SCF). Although entitled a motion for a preliminary injunction, SCF is seeking mandamus relief in the form of an order that requires the immediate payment to it from a federal official of additional funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 for the Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention Initiative (MSPI) and the Domestic Violence Prevention Initiative (DVPI). The Defendant is Yvette Roubideaux, the Director of the Indian Health Service (“IHS” or “Defendant”). After this litigation was filed, IHS agreed to pay SCF approximately $1.08 million of the disputed funds. Still disputed is approximately $449,000 in funding. On September 27, 2013, the Court heard oral argument on the motion. Having considered the documents filed with the Court, the law, and the arguments of counsel, the Court will deny the motion for the reasons set forth herein.

New Contract Support Costs Claims against Indian Health Service

Here:

Grand Ronde Complaint

Shoshone-Bannock Complaint