Michigan Radio on the Proposed Lake Huron Nuclear Waste Site

Here.

Includes a brief quote from Vernon Roote, Saugeen First Nation Chief.

Update in Agua Caliente Water Rights Case — Materials re Petition to Appeal to CA9

Here:

2015-03-16 – Phase 1 summary judgment earing transcript (original)

2015-04-13 – Dkt 10-1 – ACBCI Answer to Petition

Petition for Permission to Appeal-c2

US.answer

Previous post here.

New Scholarship on Arizona v. California

Amy Cordalis and Daniel Cordalis have published “Indian Water Rights: How Arizona v. California Left an Unwanted Cloud over the Colorado River Basin” in the Arizona Journal of Environmental Law.

The abstract:

The Colorado River is one of the most important rivers in the world. The river’s 1,400-mile journey from the Rocky Mountains to the Sea of Cortez takes on waters from seven states and from the reservations of twenty-eight Indian tribes along the way, 244,000 square miles of river basin in all. The Colorado River is also heavily managed: Its waters are allocated through a complex body of laws collectively referred to as the “Law of the River,” which includes an international treaty, two interstate water compacts, numerous federal and state statutes, and more than a dozen Indian water rights settlements. For thousands of years before the Law of the River, however, American Indians lived and irrigated within the Colorado River Basin, making due with its characteristically seasonal rains and difficult growing conditions. Today, in a cruel but all-too common twist for tribes, twelve of the basin’s twenty-eight tribes have not had their water rights completely quantified, leaving many of the basin’s oldest inhabitants without a legally secure source of water. This begs the question of how the Law of the River developed such that the Colorado River is already over-allocated but Indian water rights are to a large extent unaccounted for, and tribes—occupying and using water in the basin since time immemorial—are left struggling for whatever remaining drops they can squeeze out of the basin. And, perhaps more to the point, the question arises how Arizona v. California recognized this exact issue in the Lower Colorado River Basin and could not to fully resolve it. This article finally takes the position that tribes, the states, and the federal government must work together to settle Indian water rights claims to provide certainty to all Colorado River basin water users amidst growing undertainty from polulation growth and climate change.

Indigenous activists among those killed worldwide for protecting the environment.

Here’s the BBC article.

Agua Caliente Band Prevails on Winters-Based Water Rights Claim; Aboriginal Title Claim Denied

Here is the order in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District (C.D. Cal.):

115 DCT Order

Briefs are here, here, and here.

 

House Resources Committee Chair Letter to AG Holder and ASIA Washburn re Indian Water Rights Settlement Legislation

Here.

PDF.

New Scholarship on Jicarilla Apache Nation’s Water a Rights Brokering

Here:

The Promise of Indian Water Leasing: An Examination of One Tribe’s Success at Brokering Its Surplus Water Rights
Justin Nyberg 181

After reaching water rights settlements, a number of Native American tribes find themselves with rights to more water than their reservations or pueblo communities presently need. As climate change exacerbates drought conditions in the western United States and demand for water increases, some tribes have leased these surplus water rights to public and private, non-Indian, users. Theoretically, this could be a boon for tribes, although the extent of the economic impact of water leasing is difficult to assess without an examination of each individual water lease. This paper attempts to illustrate the economic impact of Indian water rights leasing anecdotally, by examining the leasing efforts of one particularly successful tribe, the Jicarilla Apache Nation in northern New Mexico.

Reply Briefs in Agua Caliente Water Rights Case

Here are the new materials in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District (C.D. Cal.):

2015-01-09 – Dkt 104 – US Reply in Support of Phase I Motion for Summary Judgment

2015-01-09 – Dkt 105 – CVWD Reply to Opp by ACBCI to CVWD Phase I Motion for Summary Judgment

2015-01-09 – Dkt 106 – CVWD Reply to Opp vy US to CVWD Phase I Motion for Summary Judgment

2015-01-09 – Dkt 107 – DWA Reply to ACBCI Opposition to DWA Motion for Summary Judgment

2015-01-09 – Dkt 108 – DWA Reply to US Opposition to DWA Motion for Summary Judgment

2015-01-09 – Dkt 109 – ACBCI Reply to DWA Brief in Opp to ACBCI Motions for Summary Judgment on Phase I Issues

2015-01-09 – Dkt 110 – ACBCI Reply to CVWD Brief in Opp to ACBCI Motions for Summary Judgment on Phase I Issues

Response briefs are here.

Opening briefs are here.

New Scholarship in Wyoming’s Big Horn River General Stream Adjudication

Jason Robison has posted his forthcoming paper, “Wyoming’s Big Horn General Stream Adjudication, 1977-2014,” on SSRN. It is forthcoming in the Wyoming Law Review.

An excerpt:

Aimed at addressing water rights in the State of Wyoming’s portion of the Wind/Big Horn Basin, including those held by the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe tribes on the Wind River Indian Reservation, the Big Horn general stream adjudication is currently poised to draw to a close after 37 years. This article offers an overview of this complex and often contentious legal proceeding, relying mainly on primary sources contained in a digital archive, and situates the adjudication within the broader context of western water law.