10th Circuit Briefs in N.M. Condemnation Appeal

Here are the briefs in the matter of Public Service Company of NM v. Barboan, et al, 16-cv-02050:

Appellant’s Opening Brief

Brief of Intervenor-Appellant Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC

Response Brief of Appellee Navajo Nation

Response Brief of the United States

Defendants-Appellees Individual Allottees’ Response Brief

Amicus Curiae Brief of GPA Midstream Association in support of Public Service Company of New Mexico and Reversal of the District Court

Brief of Amici Curiae the National Congress of American Indians, Pueblo of Laguna, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Support of Defendants and Affirmance of the District Court

Link to previous posts: Public Service Co. of New Mexico v. Approximately 15.49 Acres of Land in McKinley County

Federal Court Dismisses Condemnation Action over Allotments in which Navajo Nation Has Property Interest

Here are the materials in Public Service Co. of New Mexico v. Approximately 15.49 Acres of Land in McKinley County (D. N.M.):

32 Navajo Motion to Dismiss

39 Response

45 Reply

101 DCT Order — Condemnation

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.

Hualapai Tribal Court Issues Stay Order in Tribal Court Suit against Grand Canyon Skywalk


Hualapai Tribal Court Stay Order

Abritrator Awards More than $28 Million to Grand Canyon Skywalk in Dispute with Hualapai Nation

Here are those materials:

Arbitrator Final Award

Tribal Court Minute Entry & Order

Update in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development v. ‘Sa’ Nyu Wa: Complete Ninth Circuit Briefing

Here are the briefs (argument is October 19, 2012):

GCSD Opening Brief

Sa Nyu Wa Answer Brief

GCSD Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

City Ethics Blog Post on the Kickapoo Water Rights Case

Here. Interesting cross-posting on local government ethics, legislative immunity, and Indian law. An excerpt: Continue reading

Kansas Kickapoo Water Rights Claim Partially Dismissed

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

DCT Order Dismissing Individual Defendants

Individual Defendants Motion to Dismiss

Kickapoo Opposition

Individual Defendants Reply


Proposed Second Amended Complaint

Opening Ninth Circuit Brief Grand Canyon Skywalk Case


GCSD Opening Brief

Here is our last posting on the district court case.

Grand Canyon Skywalk Case Stayed Pending Tribal Court Resolution

Here are the materials:

DCT Order 3-19-12

Hualapai Bad Faith Brief

GCS Bad Faith Brief

GCS Exhibits Pt 1

GCS Exhibits Pt 2

GCS Exhibits Pt 3

GCS Exhibits Pt 4

GCS Exhibits Pt 5

Prior materials on the request for TRO are here.