Here:
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:
Indian reserved water rights
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
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.):
Cert Petition by Western Ranchers and Farmers Challenging Reserved Water Rights [updated]
Here is the petition in Bales v. United States:
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:
Federal Court Dismisses Property Owners Challenge to Klamath Indian Reserved Water Rights
Here are the materials in Hawkins v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):
NPR: “Many Native Americans Can’t Get Clean Water, Report Finds”
Here.
Report here (chapter on Navajo).
Federal Circuit Decides Baley v. United States [Indian reserved water rights to Klamath River water predate farmers]
Here is the opinion.
Here are the briefs:
klamath-tribe-amicus-brief.pdf
Idaho SCT Decides Coeur d’Alene Tribe Water Rights Matter Largely in Tribe’s Favor
Here is the opinion in In re:CSRBA Case No. 49576 (Idaho S. Ct.).
Briefs:
Coeur d’Alene Tribe Response Brief
Ninth Circuit Restores Navajo Nation Trust Breach Claim in Colorado River Water Rights Matter
Here is the opinion in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior.
An excerpt:
The panel held that the Nation’s breach of trust claim was not barred by sovereign immunity, and remanded to the district court to consider the claim on its merits. The panel held that the broad waiver of sovereign immunity found in § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) waived sovereign immunity for all non-monetary claims, and § 704 of the APA’s final agency action requirement constrained only actions brought under the APA. The panel concluded that the Nation’s breach of trust claim sought relief other than money damages, and the waiver of sovereign immunity in § 702 applied squarely to the claim.
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.