Hopi Tribe Effort to Stop Shutdown of Navajo Generating Station Fails

Here are the materials in Hopi Tribe v. Central Arizona Water Conservation District (D. Ariz.):

1 Complaint

22 Motion to Dismiss

23 Motion for Judicial Notice

36 Gila River Indian Tribe MTD

40 Hopi Response to 23

41 Hope Response to 22

46 Reply in Support of 22

46 Reply in Support of 23

47 Gila River Reply in Support of 36

49 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit Rejects Challenges to Navajo Generating Station Clean Air FIP

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).

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Hopi Tribe v. EPA

Here:

Federal Brief

Gila River Indian Community Brief

Hopi Tribe Brief

National Parks Conservation Assn Brief

Navajo Nation Brief

Salt River Project Brief

Tribal Conservation Organizations Brief

Tribal Conservation Organizations Reply Brief

Yazzie Brief

Yazzie Reply

Petition here.

Ninth Circuit Opening Briefs in Challenge to EPA Permit for Navajo Generating Station

Here:

Environmental Groups Opening Brief

To’ Nizhoni Ani Opening Brief

Yazzie Opening Brief

Gila River Brief

Navajo Brief

A second appeal involving the Hopi Tribe’s challenge has been severed from this consolidated appeal:

CA9 Order

Navajo Generating Station

Environmental Groups Challenge Navajo Generating Station Approvals, Too

Here is the petition in National Parks Conservation v. EPA (CA9):

Envtl Groups Petition

Hopi’s petition is here.

Diné CARE Loses Suit to Force EPA to Impose New Rules on Navajo Generating Station

Here are the materials in Diné CARE v. EPA (N.D. Cal.):

40 Diné CARE Motion for Summary J

41 EPA Cross Motion

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.

Hopi Tribe Objection to Interior’s Intention to Enforce Stricter Air Quality Standards at Navajo without Hopi’s Input

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.

Federal Court Enjoins Enforcement of Navajo Employment Preference Law against Salt River Project

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

Navajo Cross-Motion

Salt River Project Reply

Navajo Reply

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.

Diné CARE National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA Complaint: Clean Air Act Suit regarding Navajo Coal

Here is the complaint, filed in D.C.:

Diné CARE Complaint

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.