Here is the opinion in Penobscot Nation v. Mills (D. Me.):
Briefs here.
water rights
Cert Petition (Yes, Another One) in Challenge to Crow Water Settlement
Here is the petition in Crow Allottees v. Dept. of Justice:
Question presented:
Can the water rights owned by individual Crow Indian allottees – which this Court in United States v. Powers, 305 U.S. 527 (1939) recognized as distinct individual rights, separate from water rights possessed by the Crow Tribe – be awarded to the Crow Tribe in negotiations between the United States, the tribe, and the State of Montana?Further, do the Montana Courts have jurisdiction to decide these questions of federal law related to allottees’ rights?
Lower court materials: briefs, Mont SCT Opinion.
Related federal court materials here.
Maine’s Second Amended Complaint in State v. McCarthy
Doc. 30- Second Amended Complaint
Previous Turtle Talk coverage here.
Maine is suing the EPA over agency action concerning the State’s surface water quality standards.
Moapa Paiute Settlement Closes Coal Power Plant
Materials in The Moapa Band of Paiute Indians v. Nevada Power:
No. 114 – Order Granting Joint Motion to Approve Settlement
The settlement includes $4.3 million to the Tribe and requires defendants to shutdown the last Reid Gardner Plant by 2018. Four power stations had been running since the 60s to power the Las Vegas Valley, but were considered the dirtiest in the country and fined heavily by regulators for spewing coal ash dust. The last working plant is next to the Tribe’s reservation.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Agua Caliente Band Water Rights Case
Here are the briefs in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District:
2016-02-18 – Dkt 036 – Brief of Amici Curiae Law Professors in Support of Appellee
Squaxin Island Tribe Amicus Brief in State of Washington Water Resource Rule Appeal
Here is the brief in Hirst v. Whatcom County (Wash.):
EPA Accepting Comments on Revised Interpretation of CWA Tribal Provisions
Link to Request for Comments here.
EPA proposes to conclude definitively that section 518 includes an express delegation of authority by Congress to eligible Indian tribes to administer regulatory programs over their entire reservations. This reinterpretation would eliminate the need for applicant tribes to demonstrate inherent authority to regulate under the Act, thus allowing tribes to implement the congressional delegation of authority unhindered by requirements not specified in the statute. The reinterpretation would also bring EPA’s treatment of tribes under the Clean Water Act in line with EPA’s treatment of tribes under the Clean Air Act, which has similar statutory language addressing tribal regulation of Indian reservation areas.
Comments must be submitted by October 6, 2015.
Montana SCT Briefs in Challenge to Apsaalooke (Crow) Tribe Water Compact
Here are the briefs in In the Matter of the Adjudication of Existing and Reserved Rights Both Surface and Underground of the Crow Tribe of Indians of the State of Montana:
Update in Agua Caliente Band v. Coachella Valley Water District
Briefs filed by the Tribe and the United States to obtain summary judgment on the water districts’ equitable defenses asserted in response to the Tribe’s claim for a declaration of its federally reserved rights to groundwater.
Here:
2015-09-18 – Dkt 137 – US Notice and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment…
2015-09-18 – Dkt 138 – ACBCI Notice and Motion for Partial Summary Judgm…
Prior materials here.
Human Rights Groups’ Report on Montana Right Wing’s Fight against the CSKT Water Compact
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.