Unpublished opinion here:
Briefs here.
Klamath Tribes
A Historic Assertion of Water Rights by the Klamath Tribes
An excerpt from the Oregonian
In March, after 38 years of work, the state found that the tribes’ water rights dated to “time immemorial,” making them by far the most senior. That means the tribes will get water to protect fish in traditional fishing grounds, including two species of suckers on the endangered species list.
Farmers irrigating through the federal government’s 1905 Klamath Reclamation Project, covering roughly 200,000 acres that draw from the lake, will also get water, though they’ll face restrictions, too.
But “off-project” irrigators on about 150,000 acres above the lake generally have junior water rights to reclamation-project irrigators. They’ll have to tap wells if they can or see their water supplies reduced or shut off.
The AP story is here.
The administrative law decision and other materials can be found here.
Federal Circuit Briefs in Klamath Claims Committee v. US — UPDATED 8-26-13
Here:
Klamath Claims Committee Trust Breach Suit Dismissed under Rule 19
Here are the materials in Klamath Claims Committee v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Release: Important Victory in the Klamath Tribes Water Rights Adjudication
Important Victory in the Klamath Tribes Water Rights Adjudication
Chiloquin, OR- Today was a milestone in the lengthy Klamath Basin Water Rights Adjudication. The judge hearing the part of the Adjudication that deals with the claims of the Klamath Tribes issues six Proposed Orders quantifying the Tribes’ water rights. In each case he ruled largely in favor of the Tribes’ claims.
“The Proposed Orders give everyone in the Basin plenty to think about,” said Jeff Mitchell who leads the Klamath Tribes’ Negotiating Team. “These rulings highlight the role that the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement can play in resolving Basin water issues. The Tribes will be evaluating the rulings and discussing them with others in the Basin to determine the best path from here on.”
Some interests in the Basin advised people that the Tribes’ water rights are minimal, but those interests have been proven wrong. People who followed that advice have obviously been misled in a situation where they are risking a lot.
The rulings encompass the Williamson, Sycan, Sprague, and Wood Rivers along with many of their tributaries, as well as the Klamath Marsh and springs scattered throughout the former Klamath Reservation. Cases involving Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River are expected to have decisions handed down in April.
“These rulings emphasize the need for Basin water interests to work together to find ways to share the water, share the pain of drought, and share the bounty of our waterways,” said Tribal Vice-Chairman Don Gentry. “The Tribes are committed to restoring fisheries and water bodies in the Basin, and we believe that agricultural and other water dependent communities can be restored at the same time. That is what the KBRA can do,” he said.
The ruling is welcomed by the Tribes who have fought for their treaty rights for many decades, and are prepared to fight many more. The Tribes’ commitment to the Adjudication reflects their commitment to restoring the health of Basin fisheries and water bodies. “Our commitment to these bounties provided by the Creator will never end,” said Mitchell.
Klamath Claims Committee v. U.S. Cannot Proceed Without Klamath Tribes
Here are the materials in Klamath Claims Committee v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
DCT Order Granting Partial Dismissal for US
USA Motion to Dismiss KCC Complaint
Klamath Off-Reservation Trust Acquisition Controversy
From the Portland Oregonian via Indianz:
The Klamath Tribes have revived a controversial plan to acquire 385 acres along Interstate 5 near Wilsonville — one of the largest available tracts in the Portland area — for undisclosed commercial development.
Tribal leaders say they have no plans for a casino but could use the site for manufacturing, retail or services, while providing jobs for the 500 Klamaths who live in the Willamette Valley.
“Those Klamath peoples who live in the Willamette Valley today have just as much a right as anyone else to a sustainable livelihood and a sustainable homeland,” Chairman Joseph Kirk wrote in a letter to tribal members.
What are trust lands?
Native American trust lands are areas that the United States holds title in trust for the benefit of a federally recognized Native American tribe. The land might be located on or off a reservation. Off-reservation activities require an express federal exemption to deny state taxing power. Native American-law experts say the Klamath Tribes face a high bar in persuading the federal government to take the Wilsonville-area land into trust, considering the distance from the tribe’s reservation in southern Oregon.
The proposal, which could face years of administrative scrutiny and possible court challenges, already is drawing withering blasts from other Oregon tribes.
“This is a prime example of reservation shopping gone overboard,” said Siobhan Taylor, public affairs director for the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, headquartered about 25 miles west of Salem. “If you look at the history of the Klamaths, they have traditionally been located in Southern Oregon. It’s really a stretch for them to come up to the Wilsonville area.”
No Divided Argument in Carcieri v. Kempthorne
The Supreme Court released its other orders from last Monday’s long conference.
The motion of petitioners Donald L. Carcieri, Governor of Rhode Island, and the State of Rhode Island for divided argument is denied. The motion of petitioner Town of Charlestown for divided argument is denied. The motion of Narragansett Indian Tribe for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is denied.
So I assume the State will let Ted Olson on behalf of the governor argue the case against Ed Kneedler on the government’s side.
Here are the cert denials:
2008 Term Preview: The Long Conference — September 29, 2008
On September 29, 2008, the Supreme Court will convene for what is known as the long conference. Here is where the Court meets privately to make decisions on the summer backlog of cert petitions. There are EIGHT Indian law-related cert petitions scheduled for review in the long conference. There is a very good chance that one or more of these petitions will be granted.
1. Hawaii v. Office of Indian Affairs (07-1372)
This petition has a fairly good chance to be granted.
The first factor weighing in favor of a grant is that a state government is bringing the petition. The second factor weighing in favor are the three amicus briefs supporting the petition, often an attention getter for the clerks. Moreover, one of the amicus briefs is signed by 30 states and a U.S. territory, yet another point in favor of a grant. The wild card factor is that a similar petition reached the Court in the 2006 Term, but that one was settled out of court and dismissed (Doe v. Kamehameha Schools). Moreover, there is a case similar to Doe that has just been filed, and the Court might want to wait for that one (not sure why).
2. Ho-Chunk Nation v. Wisconsin (07-1402)
I don’t think this one has much chance to be granted.
It’s a sort of an interlocutory appeal, meaning the lower court hasn’t even reached the merits yet. And it’s being brought by an Indian tribe, which doesn’t appear to impress the Justices much. Finally, the petition cites me for the proposition that this is an important case, always a serious mistake. 8)
3. Kemp v. Osage Nation (07-1484)
This has a fairly good chance of being granted, too, but maybe not as good as the Hawaii case.
Kemp is actually the Oklahoma Tax Commission, always a Supreme Court favorite (remember the 1990s, Citizen Potawatomi, Sac and Fox, and Chickasaw Nation?). So, it’s a state government bringing the petition, weighing in favor of a grant. Moreover, the subject matter of the case is state sovereign immunity and the Ex parte Young exception. Again, a factor favoring a grant. But there doesn’t seem to be a split in authority. And the state’s argument that the Tenth Circuit’s decision conflicts with Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene seems to be a stretch, because this case is about taxation, and that one was about actual title to land.
4. Kickapoo v. Texas (07-1109)
This one has a slight chance for a grant.
I’d have said all along (and I did, I think) that this case has no chance for a grant. And then the US filed an unusual brief arguing for a denial, but making a powerful case for why the CA5 got this one wrong on every level. If the US brought the petition (it didn’t), then maybe there would be a grant on that argument alone. Baffling. Texas initially refused to file a cert opposition (probably because they read my blog entry 🙂 ), but then the Court called for a response.
Still, there’s no split. And other cases involving the same exact question are in the pipeline in Florida and Alabama. The Court will probably let this one percolate below.
5. Klamath Tribes v. PacificCorp (07-1492)
This one has no chance.
First, it’s being brought by an Indian tribe, not a favored petitioner. Second, Klamath is bringing a federal common law cause of action. The Court doesn’t favor those, either. And third, there’s no split in authority. Poor fish. 😦
6. Matheson v. Gregoire (08-23)
Again, no chance.
First, the case is being brought by an individual Indian who is challenging the fact that his tribe entered into a tax agreement with the state. He could challenge the agreement in tribal court (maybe he is), but instead he’s going to federal court. Second, there’s no split at all.
7. South Fork Band v. United States (08-100, 08-231)
No chance.
This is a case trying to reopen parts of the odious United States v. Dann decision from 20 years ago. The Court doesn’t like that, either.
8. United States v. Navajo Nation (07-1410)
Very, very good chance for a grant.
First, the petition is brought by the United States, which is the premier party in the Court’s eyes. I suspect far more than half of the US’s petitions are granted, and I’m sure all but a very few are seriously considered by the Court in conference. Second, this is the continuation of a case the Court thought to be important in 2002, U.S. v. Navajo Nation I. That case (and this one, too) involves a judgment against the United States that could reach one billion dollars, if interest attaches (a mere $600 million if it doesn’t). Third, though the Court technically left open several questions after Navajo Nation I, it strongly stamped down the first theory brought by the Navajo Nation. One suspects the Court doesn’t like seeing a case reaching an outcome it rejected once come back again under a second theory. We could either have an outcome like U.S. v. Mitchell (tribe loses first time, comes back second time and wins with new theory), or N.Y. v. Milhelm Attea (Court repeatedly instructs lower court to find against tribe, only to be forced to do the dirty work itself).
Either way you have a grant.
Turtle Talk 