Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of Interior (D. Ariz.):
water rights
Anishinaabe Nibi Inaakonigewin (water law) Report by Aimée Craft
Amazing material. Here.
Federal Judge Allows U.S. Intervention in Agua Caliente Water Rights Case
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.):
62-1 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
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.
“Tribes Win Big on Major Water Dispute in Nevada”
Here.
An excerpt:
Indian Tribes in eastern Nevada received a great victory in a long-standing fight to protect their sacred lands and water from being drained and converted into a barren dust bowl by Las Vegas and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA).
Since the late 1980s, Las Vegas water officials have pushed plans to import groundwater from across eastern Nevada to supply future growth and provide a backup supply to the Las Vegas Valley, which gets 90 percent of its drinking water from an overtaxed and drought-stricken Colorado River. Water authority officials hope to deliver water to the valley from as far north as Great Basin National Park through a network of pumps and pipelines stretching more than 300 miles and costing as much as $15 billion. The attorney for SNWA has aptly called this the “largest water case in Nevada’s history”.
On December 10, 2013 the Seventh Judicial Court of Nevada in Ely reversed the Nevada State Engineer’s decision to grant SNWA virtually all of the groundwater in eastern Nevada water basins (about 84,000 acre feet annually). The Court ruled that the amount of water awarded had to be reduced and recalculated. Importantly, the Court also agreed with the Tribes that the monitoring and mitigation approved by the State Engineer had to be revised to include more participants and have more detailed standards to protect against environmental damage from draining groundwater from the basins.
Colorado SCT Water Rights Ruling
Here is the opinion in Pawnee Well Users Inc. v. Wolfe (Colo.).
The court’s summary:
2013 CO 67. No. 12SA13. Pawnee Well Users, Inc.v. Wolfe, State Engineer.
Ground Water Regulation—Administrative Law and Procedure—Rules, Regulations, and Other Policymaking—Judicial Review of Administrative Proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that the water court erred in invalidating a basin-specific rule of the final Produced Nontributary Ground Water Rules (Final Rules) known as the Fruitland Rule, based on a stipulated agreement between the State Engineer and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. Another Final Rule—known as the Tribal Rule—states: “These Rules and regulations shall not be construed to establish the jurisdiction of either the State of Colorado or the Southern Ute Indian Tribe over nontributary ground water within the boundaries of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation.”
The Tribal Rule does not and cannot divest the State Engineer of his authority to promulgate the Final Rules governing water extracted during oil and gas production throughout the state, including nontributary groundwater. By passing HB 1303, the General Assembly authorized the State Engineer to adopt rules to assist with the administration of nontributary ground water extracted in the course of coalbed methane production and other oil and gas development in Colorado, thus authorizing the State Engineer to promulgate the Fruitland Rule. Because administrative agencies powers and duties as given by the legislature, the State Engineer cannot establish or disestablish his own jurisdiction.
Further, because the Fruitland Rule was issued pursuant to the authority granted in HB 1303—authority that was not divested by the Tribal Rule—it follows that the water court erred in labeling the Fruitland Rule an “advisory” rule and requiring the State Engineer to obtain a judicial determination that he had authority to administer nontributary ground water within the Southern Ute Indian Tribe’s Reservation’s boundaries. The Court therefore reversed the water court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Squaxin Island Loses Groundwater Rights Appeal in Washington COA
Here is the opinion in Squaxin Island Tribe v. Washington State Dept. of Ecology.
Briefs here:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.