Here are the materials in the big Klamath River case, which may be settled (unless the tribal opposition to a settlement succeeds):
Opening Brief [not available]
Karuk
Individual Aboriginal Title Claim Denied — US v. Lowry (CA9)
From the opening paragraph of the opinion, per Bybee, J.:
In this case we are presented with a question of first impression: Who bears the burden of proof when a defendant is charged with occupation of Forest Service land in violation of 36 C.F.R. §§ 261.10(b) and (k)? Must the prosecution prove that the defendant does not have individual aboriginal title, or is the claim an affirmative defense? We hold that the occupant claiming individual aboriginal title bears the burden of demonstrating such title as an affirmative defense. Applying that standard, we conclude that the defendant in this case failed to meet this burden, and we affirm the judgment of the district court upholding the defendant’s convictions.
Here are the materials:
Hoopa Press Release re: Klamath River Proposal
Media Contacts: Clifford Lyle Marshall (530) 625-4211 ext. 161
Mike Orcutt (530) 625-4267 ext. 13
Tom Schlosser (206) 386-5200
HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE REJECTS KLAMATH RIVER DEAL BECAUSE IT
LACKS ASSURED WATER FOR FISH
Hoopa, Calif. – The Hoopa Valley Tribe of northern California will not endorsethe latest draft of the Klamath River Basin Restoration Agreement (KRBRA) because the agreement lacks adequate water assurances for fish. Despite being in the minority among the negotiators, Tribal Chairman Clifford Lyle Marshall said Hoopa would never waive its fishery-based water rights, as demanded by federal and other negotiators, in a deal providing no assurances for fisheries restoration.
NYTs Article on Klamath Dam Removal
From the NYTs:
Deal on Dams on Klamath Advances
Bitter opponents over the future of the Klamath River unveiled a formal agreement on Tuesday to pave the way for removal of four aging hydroelectric dams that re-engineered the watershed and sharply decreased fish stocks.
Turtle Talk 