water rights – Page 21

Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations SCT Amicus Brief in Tarrant Regional Water District v. Hermann

April 9, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

The SCOTUSblog page on this case is here.

North Dakota Law Review Article on Missouri River Basin Compact

March 19, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Jeffrey T. Matson has published “Interstate Water Compact Version 3.0: Missouri River Basin Compact Drafters Should Consider an Inter-Sovereign Approach to Accommodate Federal and Tribal Interests in Water Resources” in the North Dakota Law Review.

The abstract:

In the aftermath of the historic 2011 Missouri River flood, Missouri River Basin (MRB) state representatives and governors criticize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for operating the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System (System) in support of the multiple, often conflicting, purposes outlined in the Flood Control Act of 1944. These officials envision entering into an interstate compact to divest the Corps of some of its operational authority and to broaden their role in managing water resources. Similarly, MRB tribal leaders argue that the Corps fails to operate its System in a manner that respects the interrelated issues of Indian reserved water rights and tribal sovereignty. As States and Tribes contemplate a rebalancing of power in the MRB, it is essential that any water resources management solution provide a forum in which affected States, Tribes, and the Federal government might work together in pursuit of interconnected interests. Accordingly, it is time for stakeholders to think beyond the dualistic “federal-interstate” compact arrangement and seriously consider a pluralistic “federal-interstate-tribal” approach – even if Indian reserved water rights are not yet quantified. Although such a tripartite approach is a departure from traditional compacting practice, the great weight of Indian reserved water rights warrants tribal representation on any commission charged with implementing a twenty-first century MRB water resources compact. Further, it would be unrealistic to expect a federal commissioner to represent tribal interests until such time as rights are quantified, given the Federal government’s conflict of interest in operating the System for other consumptive users. This Article concludes that the Federal government’s interests in flood protection, navigation, and national security, and the Tribes’ interests in protecting reserved water rights and tribal sovereignty, warrant an inter-sovereign approach whereby power is shared equally among signatories to this compact.

Havasupai Tribe, Conservation Groups Challenge Uranium Mine Threatening Grand Canyon

March 11, 2013Matthew Campbell1 Comment

The complaint can be seen here. The Center for Biological Diversity’s News Release can be seen here.

A snippet of the complaint:

After initial approval of the Canyon Mine, the Forest Service formally designated Red Butte and surrounding areas as a Traditional Cultural Property. This designation means Red Butte is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the definition of a “historic property” under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The Forest Service also recognized that Red Butte is a sacred site to the Havasupai Tribe. The Forest Service’s 1986 approvals did not analyze the Canyon Mine’s potential effects to Red Butte as a historic property under the NHPA. The Forest Service recently commenced consultation with the Havasupai Tribe concerning the Canyon Mine’s impacts to Red Butte, and claims that it intends to continue consultation. The Forest Service is refusing to undertake and complete a NHPA Section 106 Process relating to adverse impacts to the Red Butte TCP, including consulting with the Tribe for the purposes of developing a Memorandum of Agreement, prior to allowing Canyon Mine to restart mining operations, as required under NHPA and its regulations, 16 U.S.C. § 470f, 36 C.F.R § 800.13(b)(1).

Washington Supreme Court Decides Water Rights Case Involving Yakama Indian Nation

March 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Dept. of Ecology v. Acquavella:

Wash SCT Opinion

And the briefs are here:

Leonard Masten on why PacifiCorp should remove its Klamath River Dams

February 12, 2013Ann Tweedy

Here.

Ongoing Litigation Regarding Uranium Mining around the Grand Canyon

July 13, 2012July 13, 2012Matthew Campbell1 Comment

Information can be found here and here.

Motion to Intervene

KBIC, Eagle Rock, and Kennecott Mine in Scientific American

June 13, 2012Kate Fort

The article is Part 5 in a series called “Pollution, Poverty and People of Color”

“A Michigan Tribe Battles a Global Corporation”:

An abundant resource, this water has nourished a small Native American community for hundreds of years. So 10 years ago, when an international mining company arrived near the shores of Lake Superior to burrow a mile under the Earth and pull metals out of ore, the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community of the Lake Superior Band of Chippewa had to stand for its rights and its water.

And now, as bulldozers raze the land and the tunnel creeps deeper, the tribe still hasn’t backed down.

“The indigenous view on water is that it is a sacred and spiritual entity,” said Jessica Koski, mining technical assistant for the Keweenaw Bay community. “Water gives us and everything on Earth life.”

The Keweenaw Bay Indians are fighting for their clean water, sacred sites and traditional way of life as Kennecott Eagle Minerals inches towards copper and nickel extraction, scheduled to begin in 2014.

It’s a good longreads article. Our previous coverage, including the multitude of lawsuits the article mentions, is here.