New Student Scholarship on EPA Water Quality Standards and Tribal Reserved Water Rights

Mostyn Josty has published “Rivers of Sovereignty: The EPA’s New Water Quality Standards Rule as a Potential Channel for Revitalizing Tribal Reserved Water Rights” in the Cardozo Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

This Note explores the federal government’s evolving approach to its obligation to protect tribal reserved water rights through a case study of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2024 Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions to Protect Tribal Reserved Rights rule (the “WQS Rule”). It argues that while the WQS Rule represents a step forward in safeguarding tribal water rights, the legal challenge it faces underscores broader issues of federalism, administrative authority, and the country’s fluctuating commitment to tribal sovereignty. The Note examines the WQS Rule’s legal foundation, its potential challenges, and the implications for tribal self-determination, emphasizing the need for a more accountable and enforceable framework for tribal water protections.Additionally, this Note situates these legal developments within international human rights frameworks, suggesting that evolving global standards on Indigenous rights and water access could offer a more stable foundation for securing equitable water for reservations. Ultimately, this Note argues that regardless of the WQS Rule’s future, it is the underlying principle of the federal trust obligation and the need for lasting protections that must guide efforts to ensure Native Nations’ access to water.

Ninth Circuit Reverses Gila River/San Carlos Apache Water Rights Victory

Here is the opinion in Gila River Indian Community v. Schoubroek.

Here are available briefs:

Lower court materials here.

Heather Tanana to Speak at UMLS Next Week

Gila River Indian Community and San Carlos Apache Tribe Win Water Rights Dispute

Here are the materials in Gila River Indian Community v. Schoebroek (D. Ariz.):

78 Gila River MSJ

85 Schoebroek Opposition

87 Schoebroek MSJ Claim Preclusion

89 Schoebroek MSJ on Jurisdiction

100 Gila River Reply ISO 78

101 Gila River Opposition to 87

103 Gila River Opposition to 89

107 Reply ISO 87

108 Reply ISO 89

111 Schoebroek MTD San Carlos Complaint

112 San Carlos Apache Complaint in Intervention

116 Tribes Motion for Sanctions

117 San Carlos Opposition

118 Reply ISO 111

119 Opposition to 116

120 Reply ISO 116

137 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Hawkins v. Haaland Cert Petition [tribal management of Klamath River]

Here:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

Does the federal government possess final decision-making authority over the management of water rights held in trust for an Indian tribe?

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE:

Oregon Farm Bureau Amicus

Brief in Opposition

Cert stage Reply

D.C. Circuit Rejects Property Owners Challenge to Tribal Regulation of Tribal Water Rights on Klamath River — Incidentally, the First Case Caption with Secretary Haaland’s Name

Here is the opinion in Hawkins v. Haaland.

Briefs:

Opening Brief

Answer Brief

Reply

Lower court materials.

HCN: “Contested water settlements inflamed the Navajo Nation’s health crisis”

Here.

Federal Court Allows Gila River Indian Community Effort to Enforce Gila River Water Rights to Proceed

Here are the materials so far in Gila River Indian Community v. Cranford (D. Ariz.):

1 Complaint

14 Motion to Dismiss

15 Response

16 Reply

20 Defendants Supp Brief

21 GRIC Supp Brief

22 DCT Order

Cert Petition by Western Ranchers and Farmers Challenging Reserved Water Rights [updated]

Here is the petition in Bales v. United States:

baley-cert-petition.pdf

Question presented:

Whether, against the legal backdrop of Congress’s and this Court’s recognition of the primacy of state law to determine, quantify, and administer water rights, a federal court may deem federal agency regulatory action under the Endangered Species Act to constitute the adjudication and administration of water rights for tribal purposes.

Lower court materials here.

Update:

05142020-1 PacificCoastFedFishermen Opposition Brief

OpposBriefUSA-20200514173954985_19-1134 Baley

Federal Court Dismisses Property Owners Challenge to Klamath Indian Reserved Water Rights

Here are the materials in Hawkins v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):

15 Amended Complaint

17 US Motion to Dismiss

19 Response

22 Reply

24 DCT Order