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.

Federal Court Turns Down Yurok Effort to Enjoin Federal Action Threatening Salmon

Here are the materials in Yurok Tribe v. Bureau of Reclamation (N.D. Cal.):

908 DCT Stay Order

910 Yurok Motion

914 Klamath Water District Amicus Brief

916 Klamath Tribes Opposition

917 Klamath Water Users Opposition

919 US Opposition

922 Yurok Reply

924 DCt Order

Prior post here.

Ninth Circuit Decides Klamath-Trinity River Flow Dispute in Favor of Feds and Tribes

Here is the opinion in San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Haugrud.

From the court’s syllabus:

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment, and held that the Bureau of Reclamation had the authority to implement the 2013 release of Trinity River water from the Lewiston Dam, above and beyond the amount designated in the applicable water release schedule.

Reversing the district court, the panel held that the Act of August 12, 1955, gave the Bureau the authority to implement the 2013 flow augmentation release to protect fish in the lower Klamath River. Affirming the district court, the panel also held that the 2013 flow augmentation release did not violate Central Valley Project Improvement Act (“CVPIA”) section 3406(b)(23), which called for a permanent water release that would serve only the Trinity River basin. The panel further held that the 2013 flow augmentation release did not violate California water law and, in turn, did not violate the Reclamation Act of 1902 or CVPIA section 3411(a), both of which require the Bureau to comply with state water permitting requirements.

Briefs here.

Hoopa and Yurok Tribes Prevail in ESA Litigation

Link: Federal Court Protects Klamath Salmon, Tribal and Fishing Communities (Earthjustice), previous post

Materials and briefs in the matter of Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe v. Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior of the United States of America et al, 16-cv-04294 (N.D. Cali.):