water rights – Page 9

Bob Anderson on Indigenous Rights to Water and Environmental Protection

November 13, 2018November 13, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Robert T. Anderson has published Indigenous Rights to Water & Environmental Protection in the Harvard Civil rights-Civil Liberties Law Journal.

an excerpt:

This article examines the rights of Indian nations in the United States to adequate water supplies and environmental protection for their land and associated resources. Part I of this article provides a brief background on the history of federal-tribal relations and the source and scope of federal obligations to protect tribal resources. Part II reviews the source and nature of the federal government’s moral and legal obligations to Indian tribes, which are generally referred to as the trust responsibility. Indian reserved water rights and the difficulty tribes experience in protecting habitat needed for healthy treaty resources is discussed in Part III. Part IV reviews the Dakota Access Pipeline controversy and the shortcomings of federal law in protecting tribal reservations and resources. Part V concludes with recommendations for enhanced and improved access to justice as well as substantive changes in the law to advance environmental protection for Indian tribes in the United States.

The Guardian: “While Nestlé extracts millions of litres from their land, residents have no drinking water”

October 4, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

New Mexico COA Decides Navajo Nation Water Rights Issue

September 27, 2018September 27, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in State of New Mexico ex rel. State Engineer v. United States:

NM v US re Navajo Nation (NMApp 2018)

Federal Circuit Rejects Trust Breach Claim for Water by Crow Creek Sioux Tribe

August 20, 2018August 18, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. United States.

Briefs:

Crow Creek Opening Brief

US Response Brief

Lower court materials.

Tenth Circuit Dismisses Objectors’ Appeal of Pojoaque Valley Water Settlement

August 15, 2018August 15, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in State of New Mexico v. Aamodt.

Briefs:

Answering Brief for the United States of America

Appellant’s Consolidated Reply Brief to Appellees’ and Appellees in Intervention’s Briefs

Appellant’s Opening Brief

Appellant’s Supplemental Brief Pursuant to the Court’s April 5, 2018 Order

Appellee’s Answer Brief

Joint Answer Brief of Defendants-Appellees Santa Fe County and City of Santa Fe

Joint Supplemental Brief of Appellees State of New Mexico, Santa Fe County, City of Santa Fe and Rio de Tesuque Association, Inc.

Joint Supplemental Brief of Appellees the United States, Pueblo of Nambé, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Pueblo de San Ildefonso, and Pueblo de Tesuque

Response Brief of Appellee the Rio De Tesuque Association, Inc.

Commentator in Salt Lake Tribune Calls for Criminal Prosecution of San Juan County Clerk

August 9, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Gehrke: A county clerk’s deceptive attempt to keep Grayeyes out of the San Juan commission race should lead to criminal charges.”

New Scholarship on Indian Water Rights [Science Magazine]

August 4, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Indigenous communities, groundwater opportunities,” published in Science:

science article

Ninth Circuit Issues Trio of Decisions on Walker River

May 24, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Walker River Irrigation District. From the court’s syllabus:

The panel first held that the district court was correct that it retained jurisdiction to litigate additional rights in the Walker River Basin and to modify the 1936 Decree. On the merits, the panel held that the district court erred in characterizing the counterclaims as part of a new action. The panel concluded that based on the procedural history and the fact that the Tribe and the United States brought their counterclaims under the same caption as the 1924 action, the counterclaims did not constitute a new action. The panel further held that the district court erred by dismissing the claims sua sponte on the basis of res judicata without first giving the parties an opportunity to be heard on the issue. Moreover, the panel held that because the counterclaims were not a new action, traditional claim preclusion and issue preclusion did not apply.

The panel directed that on remand, the case should be randomly reassigned to a different district judge. The panel reluctantly concluded that reassignment was appropriate because it believed (1) that Judge Jones would have substantial difficulty putting out of his mind previously expressed views about the federal government and its attorneys, and (2) that reassignment will preserve the appearance of justice.

Here is the opinion in United States v. United States Board of Water Commissioners.

Here is the opinion in Mono County v. Walker River Irrigation District. From the court’s syllabus:

In an appeal raising issues pertaining to Nevada state water law, the panel certified to the Supreme Court of Nevada the following question:

Does the public trust doctrine apply to rights already adjudicated and settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation and, if so, to what extent?