Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in Agua Caliente Water Rights Claims

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

82-1 CVWD Motion for Summary J

83 US Motion for Summary J

84-1 Desert Valley Water Dist. Motion for Summary J

85-1 Agua Caliente Motion for Summary J

Previous posts here, here, and here.

Federal Judge Awards Remaining Truckee River Water to Pyramid Lake Tribe

Here is the order in United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co. (D. Nev.):

1173 Motion to Modify

1512 DCT Order

News coverage here.

Federal Court Rules in Favor of Interior and Lower Klamath River Tribes in Water Dispute

Here are the materials in San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Jewell (E.D. Cal.):

95 First Amended Complaint

113 Water Districts Motion for Summary J

116 Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman Opposition

118 Hoopa Opposition

119 Yurok Opposition

120-1 US Opposition

122 California Amicus Opposition

125 Water Districts Reply

132 Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen Reply

133 Hoopa Reply

134 Yurok Reply

135 US Reply 

175 DCT Order

News coverage here: “Judge won’t stop emergency water releases helping Klamath Basin salmon.”

UPDATE 10/8/14:

181 DCT Order on Cross Motions for Summary J

Federal Court Dismisses Navajo Colorado River Water Rights Claims

Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of Interior (D. Ariz.):

240-1 Interior Motion to Dismiss

253 Hopi motion to dismiss

282 Navajo Response

293 Interior Reply

305 DCT Order Dismissing Claims

Anishinaabe Nibi Inaakonigewin (water law) Report by Aimée Craft

Amazing material. Here.

Federal Judge Allows U.S. Intervention in Agua Caliente Water Rights Case

Press coverage here.

Previous coverage here.

The order is here:

70 DCT Order Granting Intervention

Tribal Water Law and Policy Class Offered by UC Davis Extension

Here. Here is the description:

As a result of tribes’ sovereign status and federally recognized water rights, they have an important place in the management and allocation of California’s water resources. While most water rights are based on state law, federal law recognizes a special type of water right commonly known as “federal reserved rights.” This right was first recognized in 1906 by the United States Supreme Court in Winters v. United States and applies to certain federal lands, including tribal reservations. Many California tribes have established reserved rights or are in the process of asserting them. This class will cover the legal foundation and policy behind Indian water rights and how these rights fit in California’s water allocation system. Students will review recent developments involving Indian water rights, including quantification through litigation and congressionally approved water rights settlement. They will also review Indian water rights issues in the Klamath, Lake Tahoe and Colorado River Basins. This unique class is a continuation of the California Water Law and Policy offered by the UC Davis Extension and would be of interest to policy executives, water and environmental officials, and tribal representatives who wish to better understand California water.

United States Intervenes in Agua Caliente Water Rights Dispute

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

62 US Motion to Intervene

62-1 US Complaint in Intervention

News coverage here.

Prior post with tribe’s complaint here.

And the DOJ media release: Continue reading

First Nations File Suit in Yukon Supreme Court Over Protection of Peel Watershed

Coverage here.

Chief Ed Champion of the Nacho Nyak Dun First Nation said his community is not against mining and development.

“We have lived closely with mining for over 100 years. Many of my people are miners or work in the mining industry. We have excellent relationships with mining companies that we work hard to maintain,” Champion said.

“That said, we do not want to see mining in the Peel watershed. To us, that land and water is sacred and should be preserved for future generations.”

The government’s decision created uncertainty for mining and industrial developers, as well, the groups said.

Kickapoo Water Rights Claim Fails

Here are the materials in Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas v. Black (D. Kan.):

248 Watershed District Motion for Summary J

291 Kickapoo Motion for Summary J

301 DCT Order

An excerpt:

As is evidenced by the briefing, this case has a long and complex factual background. However, the facts material to the pending motions are few and uncontroverted. The Kickapoo Indian Reservation (“Reservation”) lies almost entirely within the District’s boundaries. The Tribe and the District entered into the Watershed Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Upper Delaware and Tributaries Watershed (“Agreement”) in 1994 to serve as co-sponsors of a project aimed to carry out works of improvement for soil conservation and for other purposes, including flood prevention. The parties agreed to co-sponsor the project after failed attempts by each party to sponsor the project on its own. The parties reached the Agreement following a procedure established by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Soil Conservation Service (“SCS”), now known as the National Resource Conservation Service, under what is referred to as P.L. 83–566 (the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.). Many years of planning and negotiation by both parties and numerous other contractors, government officials, and agencies preceded the Agreement. In addition to twenty floodwater retarding dams and other various improvements, the Agreement included plans for a multipurpose dam with recreational facilities, otherwise known as the “Plum Creek Project.”

On multiple occasions, the Tribe asked the District to exercise its power of eminent domain to condemn non-Indian-owned land for the Plum Creek Project that the Tribe had been unable to acquire on its own. The District declined the Tribe’s request each time. The Tribe filed this water rights action on June 14, 2006, seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and specific performance. In essence, the Tribe claims that the Agreement is a binding contract that obligates the District to condemn 1,200 acres of land on the Tribe’s behalf to build the Plum Creek Project.

The parties agree that the issue before the court in both summary judgment motions boils down to this: Does the Agreement unambiguously require the District to exercise its eminent domain powers on the Tribe’s behalf to acquire non-Indian land necessary to build the Plum Creek Project? The Tribe contends the answer is yes, and the District argues that the answer is no.

Prior posts here and here.