Feds Deny Approval of Construction of the DAPL on Lands that Border Lake Oahe [corrected headline]

Here is the United States’ press release:

JOINT STATEMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR REGARDING STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE V. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior issued the following statement regarding Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

“We appreciate the District Court’s opinion on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.  However, important issues raised by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other tribal nations and their members regarding the Dakota Access pipeline specifically, and pipeline-related decision-making generally, remain.  Therefore, the Department of the Army, the Department of Justice, and the Department of the Interior will take the following steps.

“The Army will not authorize constructing the Dakota Access pipeline on Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe until it can determine whether it will need to reconsider any of its previous decisions regarding the Lake Oahe site under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or other federal laws.  Therefore, construction of the pipeline on Army Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe will not go forward at this time.  The Army will move expeditiously to make this determination, as everyone involved — including the pipeline company and its workers — deserves a clear and timely resolution.  In the interim, we request that the pipeline company voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe.

“Furthermore, this case has highlighted the need for a serious discussion on whether there should be nationwide reform with respect to considering tribes’ views on these types of infrastructure projects.  Therefore, this fall, we will invite tribes to formal, government-to-government consultations on two questions:  (1) within the existing statutory framework, what should the federal government do to better ensure meaningful tribal input into infrastructure-related reviews and decisions and the protection of tribal lands, resources, and treaty rights; and (2) should new legislation be proposed to Congress to alter that statutory framework and promote those goals.

“Finally, we fully support the rights of all Americans to assemble and speak freely.  We urge everyone involved in protest or pipeline activities to adhere to the principles of nonviolence.  Of course, anyone who commits violent or destructive acts may face criminal sanctions from federal, tribal, state, or local authorities.  The Departments of Justice and the Interior will continue to deploy resources to North Dakota to help state, local, and tribal authorities, and the communities they serve, better communicate, defuse tensions, support peaceful protest, and maintain public safety.

“In recent days, we have seen thousands of demonstrators come together peacefully, with support from scores of sovereign tribal governments, to exercise their First Amendment rights and to voice heartfelt concerns about the environment and historic, sacred sites.  It is now incumbent on all of us to develop a path forward that serves the broadest public interest.”

 

Standing Rock’s Request for an Injunction Denied

Here:

memorandum-opinion-09_09_2016

Atlantic: “The Legal Case for Blocking the Dakota Access Pipeline”

Here.

Subtitled: “Did the U.S. government help destroy a major Sioux archeological site?”

An excerot:

“These are valid claims and, as alleged, they are strong claims,” says Sarah Krakoff, a professor of environmental resource and Indian law at the University of Colorado Boulder. “These [federal provisions] are intended to slow this process down, so that they can make sure the right environmental decision is being made.”

She added, “the Clean Water Act has substantive provisions that prefer good environmental outcomes to bad. And the proximity of this pipeline to their main water source does make their legal case stronger than some I’ve seen.”

Colorado gold mine is one of the EPA’s new Superfund pollution sites

A Colorado gold mine that spilled more than 3 million gallons of wastewater into western rivers was among nearly a dozen sites added Wednesday to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund National Priorities List.

HERE.

Prior posts on the Gold King Mine HERE.

 

Historic Water Agreement Between Oklahoma and Tribes

Download agreement here.

Link to official website and additional documents here.

Link to previous coverage here.

The agreement requires Congressional approval.

Chickasaw and Choctaw Reach Water Settlement with Oklahoma

Here.

US Moves to Recuse Federal Judge from Indian Water Rights-Related Matter Due to Bias against Federal Government

Here is the motion in United States v. Walker River Irrigation District (D. Nev.):

1414 US Motion to Recuse

Catherine O’Neill on Washington Dept. of Ecology’s Draft Water Quality Standards and the District Court’s Order Enjoining EPA to Act

Here.  Professor O’Neill provides a detailed and understandable summary of the many problems with Ecology’s draft standards and also explains EPA’s role and the District Court for the Western District of Washington’s recent decision.

The District Court’s decision in Puget Soundkeeper Alliance v. EPA is here: Puget Soundkeeper v EPA Order on Summary Judgment 8-3-16.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Klamath-Trinity River Flow Dispute

Hoopa - Trinity River
Trinity River in the Hoopa Valley Reservation

Here are the materials in San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water authority v. Jewell:

25 US Opening Brief

27 YT Opening Brief

28 CDFW Motion and Amicus Brief

52 2016-04-15 SLDMWA-WWD opening & resp brief

57 2016-07-01 Hoopa reply brief

59 2016-07-01 Fed Ds’ reply-response brief

62 2016-07-01 PCFFA-IFR response brief

64 2016-07-01 Yurok third brief on cross-appeal

72 2016-07-29 water contractors’ cross-appeal reply brief

73 2016-07-29 water contractors’ reply to PCFFA

SLDMWA v. Jewell, 52 FS3d 1020 (EDCA 2014) 2013 FARs XMSJ dcn

Attorney-Adviser Vacancy with DOI in Boise

Link to USAJobs announcement here.

Main client would be Bureau of Reclamation (so water law), with some Indian law work.  Closes Friday, August 8, 2016.