Gila River

Federal Circuit Affirms (2-1) Dismissal of San Carlos Apache Trust Breach Case re: Gila River Water Rights

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United States.

An excerpt from the majority:

The San Carlos Apache Tribe (“Tribe”) appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed the Tribe’s monetary damages claim against the United States for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty relating to water rights in the Gila River. Because the Court of Federal Claims correctly granted the government’s motion to dismiss the Tribe’s claim for lack of jurisdiction, we affirm.

And from the dissent:

For decades the United States stood together with the San Carlos Apache Tribe, in federal and state court, pressing the position that the 1935 Globe Equity Decree did not finally determine the Tribe’s water rights in the Gila River. When the issue was resolved in 2006 in the Arizona Supreme Court, and the Tribe’s water rights were finally lost, the Tribe filed a claim for monetary damages in the Court of Federal Claims. In that court, for the first time, the United States took the position that the claim became time-barred six years after the Globe Equity Decree of 1935. The government now argues, and my colleagues now agree, that the Tribe was required to file this suit for the value of the lost water rights, before the water rights had been finally lost and before any claim for damages arose. The court holds that this Tucker Act claim became time-barred in 1941, although its premises did not arise until the Arizona Supreme Court finally resolved the water rights issue in 2006. Thus this court provides “yet another instance of the manifest injustice which has assailed the Tribe at virtually every turn since their dealings with the United States and its citizens began.” United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., 804 F. Supp. 1, 5 (D. Ariz. 1992). I respectfully dissent.

NYTs on Gila River Water Rights

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

From the NYTs:

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, Ariz. — More than a hundred years ago, the Gila River, siphoned off by farmers upstream, all but dried up here in the parched flats south of Phoenix, plunging an Indian community that had depended on it for centuries of farming into starvation and poverty.

If that was not bad enough, food rations sent by the federal government — white flour, lard, canned meats and other sugary, processed foods — conspired with the genetic anomalies of the Indians to sow an obesity epidemic that has left the reservation with among the highest rates of diabetes in the world.

Now, after decades of litigation that produced the largest water-rights settlement ever in Indian country, the Indians here are getting some of their water back. And with it has come the question: Can a healthier lifestyle lost generations ago be restored?

Reviving the farming tradition will prove difficult, many tribal members say, because the tribes, who number 20,000, including about 12,000 on the reservation, have not farmed on a big scale for generations. Fast food is a powerful lure particularly for the young, and the trend of late has been to move off the reservation, to work or live.

Continue reading →

Blumm et al. on the McCarren Amendment and Indian Water Rights

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Michael Blumm, David Becker, and Joshua Smith (all of Lewis & Clark) just posted, “The Mirage of Indian Reserved Water Rights and Western Streamflow Restoration in the McCarran Amendment Era: A Promise Unfulfilled.”

ABSTRACT: Western state water law has been notorious for its
failure to protect streamflows. One potential means of providing
the missing balance in western water allocation has always been
Indian water rights, which are federal rights reserved from state
laws. These federal water rights normally have priority over
state-granted rights because they usually were created in the
19th century, well before most Western state water allocation
systems were even established.

Over two decades ago, in 1983, Justice William Brennan assured
Indian tribes that their reserved water rights would not be
compromised by subjecting them to state court adjudications under
the so-called McCarran Amendment, an appropriations rider given
expansive interpretation by the Supreme Court in the 1970s and
1980s. Justice Brennan’s belief that state courts – comprised
largely of elected judges – could treat tribal claims
evenhandedly, despite the high stakes and entrenched interests
involved in Western water rights adjudications, has never been
evaluated.

This study aims to begin to fill that gap by examining the
results of six Western water right adjudications – five of which
were decided by state courts – involving the Klamath, Wind,
Yakima, Gila, and Snake Rivers, as well as Pyramid Lake. The
results suggest that Justice Brennan’s optimism was quite
misplaced: in none of the cases studied did a court order
restoration of streamflows necessary to fulfill the purpose of
the tribe’s reservation. Instead, the state courts created a
number of new legal principles to limit or diminish tribal water
rights, in an apparent effort to reduce the displacement of
current water users.

The paper concludes that in the McCarran Amendment Era tribes
must resort to extrajudicial means of restoring streamflows
necessary to fulfill the purposes of their reservations. It shows
how some tribes have employed settlements – and even state law –
to achieve partial streamflow restoration, which is all that now
seems possible in an era in which their claims are usually judged
by skeptical state court judges who face reelections in which
entrenched water users exert considerable influence.