Here are the materials in Hopi Tribe v. Central Arizona Water Conservation District (D. Ariz.):
36 Gila River Indian Tribe MTD
Here are the materials in Hopi Tribe v. Central Arizona Water Conservation District (D. Ariz.):
36 Gila River Indian Tribe MTD
Here is the opinion in Yazzie v. EPA. Here is the opinion in Hopi Tribe v. EPA. The Yazzie opinion is the lead opinion and has more details.
Materials in the Yazzie appeal are here. Materials in the Hopi appeal are here (some of the Yazzie briefs are here, too).
Here:
Environmental Groups Opening Brief
A second appeal involving the Hopi Tribe’s challenge has been severed from this consolidated appeal:
Here is the petition in National Parks Conservation v. EPA (CA9):
Hopi’s petition is here.
Here:
Here are the materials in Diné CARE v. EPA (N.D. Cal.):
40 Diné CARE Motion for Summary J
44 Salt River Project Cross Motion
55 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint
An excerpt:
Now before the Court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Diné Care and National Parks Conservation Association (collectively “Plaintiffs”) move to have the Court issue an order requiring Defendant, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Lisa Jackson in her official capacity as administrator (collectively “EPA”), issue a final rule within one year that establishes Best Available Retrofit Technology for the Navajo Generating Station. The EPA and the intervenor-defendant Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (“Intervenor”) each cross-move for summary judgment on the basis that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ complaint under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). Having considered the parties’ pleadings and the relevant legal authority, the Court hereby GRANTS the EPA’s and Intervenor’s motions for summary judgment. The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction of this citizen suit and dismisses the action.
Here:
Hopi Letter to Secretary of the Interior
An excerpt:
On September 4, 2013, the Hopi Tribe (“Tribe”) wrote to you expressing its serious concerns regarding the Department oflnterior’s (“DOl”) decision to join with the Salt River Project (“SRP”) and others to develop and endorse a proposed Altemative (“SRP- Altemative”) to the pending EPA rulemaking that would set stricter air quality standards and require the Best Available Retrofit Technology (“BART”) for the Navajo Generating Station (“NOS”), a coalfired power plant located on the Navajo Reservation in northeastern Arizona. In our letter, we also informed you that the Tribe would be hosting DOl attomey, Letty Belin, for a meeting (on September 5, 2013) that she had requested in order to discuss the proposed SRP-Altemative to the EPA rule, including the Tribe’s exclusion from the process. As a result of the Tribe’s meeting with Ms. Belin, the Tribe now has greater concerns regarding DOl’s explanations for its decision to exclude the Hopi Tribe from the process and its support of the proposed SRPAlternative. Rather than satisfying the concerns expressed by the Tribe, Ms. Belin’s explanation of the basis for DOl’s decisions merely senred to underscore DOI’s disregard of the Tribe’s interests as a major stakeholder in this matter and its violation of the trust responsibility it owes to the Hopi Tribe.
Here are the materials in Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Lee (D. Ariz.):
DCT Order Granting Salt River Project Motion
Salt River Project Motion for Summary J
This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit, materials here.
For more background on the Navajo Preference in Employment Act, see Howard Brown and Ray Austin’s excellent article here.
Here is the complaint, filed in D.C.:
An excerpt:
1. The federal Clean Air Act requires the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“Administrator” or “EPA”) to promulgate modern pollution control limits at the massive Navajo Generating Station (“NGS”) and Four Corners Power Plant (“Four Corners”), located on Navajo tribal lands in Arizona and New Mexico, to remedy unhealthful, scenery-impairing air pollution in protected national parks and wilderness areas in the American Southwest. Because EPA has failed to promulgate such pollution control limits without unreasonable delay, Plaintiffs bring this action to secure an order from the court that directs EPA to issue haze-reducing pollution control limits at NGS and Four Corners forthwith.
2. In particular, this Clean Air Act Section 304(a) citizen suit, 42 U.S.C. §7604(a), seeks an order compelling EPA to perform its nondiscretionary duties by date or dates certain to promulgate federal implementation plans (“FIPs”) establishing Best Available Retrofit Technology (“BART”) for NGS and Four Corners. EPA’s failure to perform these duties within a reasonable time has deprived Plaintiffs’ members of health, welfare, and procedural protections provided by the Clean Air Act.
You must be logged in to post a comment.