water rights

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Agua Caliente Reserved Groundwater Claims

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District:

CA9 Opinion

 

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.

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Navajo Nation Water Rights Claim to Colorado River

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the briefs in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of Interior:

Navajo Opening Brief

BIA Brief

Arizona Brief

Nevada Brief

Water Districts Brief

Navajo Reply

 

Oral argument video here.

Lower court materials here.

Standing Rock may be the first battle site in Trump’s war on the environment

Teresa Walrod1 Comment

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.”

HERE

Court Denies TRO to Prevent Publishing Dakota Access EIS Notice

Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

Download(PDF) DAPL motion and memorandum of law filed January 16, 2017:

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

Ann Tweedy1 Comment

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

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in Havasupai Tribe v. Anasazi Water Co. (D. Ariz.):

Complaint

Navajos Seek $160M for Damages in Gold King Mine Spill

Teresa Walrod

“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.

News Profile of Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply System

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Pipeline protesters say they are fighting to protect clean water for 200,000 South Dakotans.”

Ninth Circuit Oral Argument Video in Agua Caliente v. Coachella Valley Water District

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Briefs here.

Washington Supreme Court Ruling in Hirst Protects Instream Flows

Ann Tweedy

In this much anticipated opinion, the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that, in violation of state law, Whatcom County did not ensure the existence of adequate water supplies before issuing building permits. The case will protect stream flows from the “death by a thousand cuts” impact of small wells. Many Washington tribes have sought to protect stream flows from these so-called exempt wells. The opinion is here.