Here are the materials, including the opinion:
USA v Gila Valley Irrigation District Opinion
GRIC and SCAT Appellants Brief
Gila River Indian Community Reply Brief
water rights
Federal Court Orders Agua Caliente Indian Reserved Water Rights Case to Phase II
Here is the order in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District (C.D. Cal.):
Doc 180 Order. Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay and Proceed with Phase (IN CHAMBERS)
Federal Claims Court Dismisses Crow Creek Sioux Water Rights Takings Claim
Here are the materials in Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
An excerpt:
Plaintiff Crow Creek has sued the United States through the Department of the Interior alleging a Fifth Amendment taking of its reserved water rights. See Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 576–78, 28 S.Ct. 207, 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Its motion has several bases, including standing, ripeness, and issues related to the statute of limitations. Defendant also contends that the Government’s bare trust relationship with Crow Creek does not provide the “money-mandating” statute or regulation necessary for jurisdiction in this court. See United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400, 96 S.Ct. 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976).
Plaintiff’s pleadings do not show how damages from an alleged taking could have accrued currently, and oral arguments did not clarify this threshold issue. Nevertheless, plaintiff urged the court to permit sufficient discovery for it to address defendant’s jurisdictional arguments. Given the opportunity to inquire into the extent of defendant’s diversion of its rights in the waters of the Missouri River, the Tribe argued it would be able to definitively establish damages. Plaintiff believes that granting defendant’s dispositive motion at this stage would be premature.Crow Creek would pursue expensive and time-consuming litigation to find some evidence that defendant has taken an amount of water that the Tribe could have used for another, unnamed purpose. For example, counsel stated during oral arguments that plaintiff could hire experts to submit reports on various methods of obtaining appraised values for those waters. Plaintiff believes that those values would supply evidence of the damages that its case now lacks.
The relationship between Native American tribes and the United States is a special one in this court; plaintiff is entitled to every latitude in its efforts to establish a cause of action. In this case, however, opening discovery in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss would result in a waste of resources for both parties. We must grant defendant’s motion for the reasons described below.
DOI Consultation Notice on DOI Reorganization
Download(PDF): Tribal Listening Sessions on E.O. 13871: Reorganization of the Executive Branch
Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Michael S. Black, invites Tribal leaders to attend one of the listed listening sessions to provide input on improving “efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability” at the Department of the Interior.
DATES
- Thursday, May 25, 2017
- 1:30-3:15PM PDT
- Hilton DoubleTree Lloyd Center, Portland OR
- In conjunction with the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians Mid-Year
- Thursday, June 1, 2017
- 8:30AM-12:00PM MST
- Phoenix Convention Center, Phoenix AZ
- Tuesday, June 6, 2017
- 8:30AM-12:00PM CDT
- Mystic Lake Casino & Hotel, Prior Lake MN
- Thursday, June 8, 2017
- 8:30AM-12:00PM MDT
- Rushmore Civic Center, Rapid City SD
- Monday, June 12, 2017
- 1:00PM-2:45PM EDT
- Mohegan Sun, Uncasville CT
- In conjunction with the NCAI Mid-Year Conference
- Tuesday, June 27, 2017
- 8:30PM-12:00PM CDT
- Tulsa Convention Center, Tulsa OK
Central Arizona Water Conservation District Responds to Ak-Chin Suit; Seeks Federal Joinder
Federal Court Dismisses Havasupai Water Rights Claim
Here are the briefs in Havasupai Tribe v. Anasazi Water Co. (D. Ariz.):
15 Anasazi Motion to Order Joinder
18 Halvorson-Seibold Motion to Dismiss
62 Tribe Response to Motion for Joinder
63 Tribe Response to Motion to Dismiss
We posted the complaint here.
Michelle Bryan on Sacred Water within Prior Appropriation
Michelle Bryan has posted “Valuing Tribal Sacred Water within Prior Appropriation,” published in the Natural Resources Journal. Here is an excerpt from the abstract:
Much has been written in the area of waters to support fishing rights under treaty. This article does not address these rights, but rather focuses on the sacred nature of the water resource itself. While the two may be complementary, a sacred water use may also exist separate from a recognized treaty fishing right. There are other places where these values should further be reflected, such as federal lands management plans, local land development codes, and environmental assessment review. This piece, however, will focus on the notable absence of sacred value within prior appropriation. This shift is important not only for the legal protections it might afford, but just as importantly as a signal that our water laws can stretch to protect the many interests of our time.
Ak-Chin Indian Community files suit against Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD)
Here is the complaint in Ak-Chin Indian Community v. Central Arizona Water Conservation District (D. Ariz.):
Richard Hughes on Pueblo Water Rights
Richard W. Hughes has published “Pueblo Indian Water Rights: Charting the Unknown” in the Natural Resources Journal, Winter 2017.
Here is the abstract:
This article examines the so-far-unsuccessful efforts to judicially define and quantify the water rights appurtenant to the core land holdings of the 19 New Mexico Pueblos, many of whose lands straddle the Rio Grande. It explains that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has squarely held that Pueblo water rights are governed by federal, not state law, and are prior to those of any non-Indian appropriator, but also that the Tenth Circuit acknowledged that it could not say how those rights should be characterized. Part I of the article examines the course of the cases that have sought to achieve this elusive goal. Of the first six cases, filed half a century ago, three ended in negotiated settlements and none of them has yielded a definitive ruling on the nature or measure of Pueblo rights. Of the three cases filed since then, only one is in active litigation on the Pueblo rights issue, but that case may finally lead to a substantive ruling. Part II discusses the few rulings that have been issued in these cases so far relative to Pueblo water rights, and examines the distinctive nature of the issues that are presented by the unique circumstances of the Pueblos’ history and landholdings. The article notes that the ultimate determination of the nature and measure of Pueblo rights could have dramatic consequences for any effort to adjudicate rights on the mainstem of the Upper and Middle Rio Grande.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.