Ninth Circuit Decides Pyramid Lake Paiute v. Nevada — Water for Wetlands Appeal

Here are the materials in Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Nevada Dept. of Wildlife:

CA9 Opinion

Nevada Dept. of Wildlife Opening Brief

Nevada State Engineer Opening Brief

Nevada Water Fowl Assn Opening Brief

Federal Answer Brief

Pyramid Lake Paiute Answer Brief

The court’s syllabus:

Affirming the district court’s judgment, the panel held that the district court correctly  concluded that diversion of water for waterfowl habitat is not “irrigation” within the meaning of the federal court Alpine decree governing water rights in the Newlands Reclamation Project.

This appeal concerns applications filed by the Nevada Department of Wildlife and the Nevada Waterfowl Association to transfer water rights from agricultural  land in the Newlands Project to the Carson Lake and Pasture, a wildlife refuge located within the Lahontan Valley wetlands at the terminus of the Carson River. Because the  applicants proposed to use the transferred water to support the growth of plants used by wildlife, they argued that the intended use of water at Carson Lake and Pasture  constituted irrigation. The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and the United States protested the applications.

Determining that the Tribe had standing, the panel held that both the Alpine Decree and the Nevada water code speak of irrigation solely in the context of agriculture and distinguish such use from the application of water for recreational, aesthetic, and wildlife purposes. Therefore, the panel agreed with the district court that the State Engineer’s approval of the applications to transfer the non-consumptive use portion of the applicants’ water rights violated Administrative Provision VII of the Alpine Decree because the applications sought a change in the manner of use to a non-irrigation purpose.

Federal Court Issues Decision in Challenge to Suquamish Usual and Accustomed Fishing Areas

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 05-4 (W.D. Wash.):

193 Swinomish Motion for Partial Summary J

195 Suquamish Motion

199 Tulalip Motion

Subp 05-4 Dkt 242 Order Suquamish-1

Materials on subproceeding 05-3 are here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Exclusion of Counties in Termination Case Involving Mishewal Wappo Tribe

Here is the opinion in Mishewal Wappo Tribe v. Salazar.

Excerpt:

The Counties of Napa and Sonoma (“the Counties”) appeal the district court’s revocation of  their status as intervening defendants. The Counties also appeal the district court’s denial  of their motion to dismiss. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the revocation of their status as intervenors.

Briefs:

County Opening Brief

Mishewal Wappo Brief

County Reply

Chehalis Tribe Prevails in Great Wolf Lodge Tax Case

Here is the opinion.

The court’s summary:

Reversing the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that state and local governments lack the power to tax permanent improvements built on non-reservation land owned by the United States and held in trust for an Indian tribe pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465.

The panel held that pursuant to Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973), the exemption of trust lands from state and local taxation under § 465 extends to permanent improvements on such lands. The panel concluded that the fact that the improvements were owned by a limited liability company, rather than by the tribe itself, was irrelevant, as was the question whether the improvements constituted personal property under state law.

Briefs here.

Oral argument audio here.

Judicial notice materials re: new federal leasing regs are here.

Answer Brief in EXC, Inc. v. Jensen

Here:

EXC Answer Brief

Opening briefs are here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Conviction for Destroying Nez Perce Pictographs

Here is the unpublished opinion n United States v. Bernal.

News coverage and pics here.

Ninth Circuit Reverses Manslaughter Conviction on Colville for Improper Jury Instruction

Here is the opinion in United States v. Garcia.

The Hill: Indian Voting Rights Case Could Decide Control of Senate in 2015

Here.

An excerpt:

Carole Goldberg, a professor and vice chancellor at UCLA’s School of Law who has dealt extensively with Native American legal rights, said discrimination is widespread in many states with Native populations.

“There are persistent patterns where states have criminal jurisdiction on reservations and the counties that exercise this jurisdiction locate their facilities and services in a place convenient for the non-Native population and not the Native populations,” said Goldberg, who has donated to multiple Democratic candidates.

Tonasket v. Sargent Cert Stage Reply Brief

Here:

Tonasket v Sargent Cert Stage Reply

Ninth Circuit Issues Another Superceding Opinion in Gila River Indian Community v. United States

Here:

Gila River v US Superceding Opinion July 9 2013

Prior post here.