Here is the complaint in Ak-Chin Indian Community v. Central Arizona Water Conservation District (D. Ariz.):
water rights
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.
Map of Proposed Pipelines in Tribal Homelands by Aaron Carapella
Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Agua Caliente Reserved Groundwater Claims
Here is the opinion in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District:
An excerpt:
The Coachella Valley Water District (“CVWD”) and the Desert Water Agency (“DWA”) (collectively, the “water agencies”) bring an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (the “Tribe”) and the United States. The judgment declares that the United States impliedly reserved appurtenant water sources, including groundwater, when it created the Tribe’s reservation in California’s arid Coachella Valley. We agree. In affirming, we recognize that there is no controlling federal appellate authority addressing whether the reserved rights doctrine applies to groundwater. However, because we conclude that it does, we hold that the Tribe has a reserved right to groundwater underlying its reservation as a result of the purpose for which the reservation was established.
Ninth Circuit Materials in Navajo Nation Water Rights Claim to Colorado River
Standing Rock may be the first battle site in Trump’s war on the environment
From the article:
“Trump’s orders, in themselves, did not completely undo the Obama administration’s pipeline decisions, but they are clear indicators that such an outcome is in the works. TransCanada, the Keystone project’s owner, is being asked to resubmit the project application (with the caveat that Trump wants the pipeline built with 100% American steel). Meanwhile, the Army Corps of Engineers is being ordered to “review and approve in an expedited manner” the North Dakota pipeline plan of Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners.”
Court Denies TRO to Prevent Publishing Dakota Access EIS Notice
Download(PDF) DAPL motion and memorandum of law filed January 16, 2017:
- Doc. 80 – Cross-Claimant Dakota Access, LLC’s Motion Under the All Writs Act to Prevent Publication of Environmental-Impact-Statement Notice in Federal Register, and Emergency Motion for Interim Relief Through a Temporary Restraining Order
- Doc. 80-1 – Cross-Claimant Dakota Access, LLC’s Memorandum of Law Supporting Motion Under the All Writs Act to Prevent Publication of Environmental-Impact-Statement Notice in Federal Register, and Emergency Motion for Interim Relief Through a Temporary Restraining Order
From the District Court for the District of Columbia in the matter of Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1:16-cv-01796-JEB:
“MINUTE ORDER: As explained in open court following today’s hearing, the Court ORDERS that Dakota Access’s 80 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED and its Motion for Preliminary Injunction is WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 01/18/2017. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 01/18/2017)”
Download(PDF) Federal Register : Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in Connection With Dakota Access, LLC’s Request for an Easement To Cross Lake Oahe, North Dakota
#NoDAPL Turned on its Head
Here’s a piece by Terry Anderson & Shawn Regan arguing that the reasons that Standing Rock opposes the pipeline have to with the fact that the Tribe couldn’t benefit economically from DAPL due to stifling federal regulation. This is a very troubling argument that I worry is just 50s-era termination in sheep’s clothing.
Havasupai Tribe Sues over the Taking of Groundwater
Here is the complaint in Havasupai Tribe v. Anasazi Water Co. (D. Ariz.):
Navajos Seek $160M for Damages in Gold King Mine Spill
“Navajo Nation Attorney General Ethel Branch said in the release that the spill transformed the river from a “life-giver and protector” to a “threat” to the Navajo people, crops and animals.”
Story is HERE.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.