Here are the new materials in Ak-Chin Indian Community v. Central Arizona Water Conservation District (D. Ariz.):
Complaint is here.
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 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.
Here is the complaint in Ak-Chin Indian Community v. Central Arizona Water Conservation District (D. Ariz.):
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.
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.
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.”
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
You must be logged in to post a comment.