Stanford Environmental Law Journal

Bob Anderson on Water Rights, Water Quality, and Regulatory Jurisdiction in Indian Country

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Robert T. Anderson has posted his paper, “Water Rights, Water Quality, and Regulatory Jurisdiction in Indian Country,” forthcoming in the Stanford Environmental Law Journal, on SSRN.

The abstract:

In the seminal Indian water rights case, Winters v. United States (1908), the Court posed this question: “The Indians had command of the lands and the waters—command of all their beneficial use, whether kept for hunting, ‘and grazing roving herds of stock,’ or turned to agriculture and the arts of civilization. Did they give up all this?” The Court’s answer was no, and since then a large body of law has developed around Indian water rights, although the primary focus has been on the amount of water reserved for various tribal purposes. While Indian nations use property rights theories to protect their water resources from loss to non-Indian use, they also deploy their inherent governmental authority through tribal water codes and the federal Clean Water Act to protect water quality. As competition for water resources grows and development pressures adversely affect water quality, Indian Nations and their neighbors face new challenges in defining Indian water rights for instream habitat protection and traditional consumptive uses.

This article reviews the nature of Indian water rights—both on and off reservations—and the use of tribal sovereignty to protect those rights in terms of quantity and quality. The case law in this arena is sparse, and the ability to predict an all-or-nothing litigated outcome is correspondingly limited. Under these circumstances, parties would be best off to default to the usual presumptions recognizing inherent tribal authority over on-reservation water resources and state authority outside of Indian country. From this jurisdictional baseline, tribes, states and the United States should cooperate to ensure that a given regulatory regime protects water quality and access to water.

Highly recommended!

Kristen Carpenter: “Real Property and Peoplehood”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kristen Carpenter has published her excellent paper “Real Property and Peoplehood” in the Stanford Environmental Law Journal. Here is the abstract:

This Article proposes a theory of “real property and peoplehood” in which lands essential to the identity and survival of collective groups are entitled to heightened legal protection. Although many Americans are sympathetic to American Indian tribes and their quest for cultural survival, we remain unwilling to confront the uncomfortable truth that the very thing Indian peoples need is their land, the same land that the United States took from them. This is especially true with regard to Indian “sacred sites.” These are features of the natural landscape holding religious and cultural significance for American Indian tribes. The Supreme Court has held that destruction of sacred sites located on the public lands does not impinge on individual religious belief and falls within the government’s powers as a landowner. This is true even if the sacred site is unique and essential to a particular religious practice. Although recent federal policy has evolved in favor of accommodating Indian sacred sites practices, land management agencies use their considerable discretion to permit competing uses of the public lands–such as natural resource development and tourism–that threaten the physical integrity of sacred sites. Such decisions devastate Indian people and undermine our shared expectation of free exercise rights for all Americans. Thus, federal law needs to prioritize Indian interests in sacred sites over competing uses of the public lands. Unfortunately, we do not yet have a legal theory justifying such a position.
My theory of real property and peoplehood furthers the work of scholars who have recognized the relationship between human beings and property, albeit in other contexts. Most influentially, Professor Margaret Jane Radin *314 has long argued for special legal protection of property that expresses an individual’s sense of self and therefore cannot be translated into a monetary value. But whereas Radin focuses on property that expresses individual personhood, I am interested in property that expresses collective “peoplehood.” As a descriptive matter, this concept of peoplehood reflects that, even in the United States where the individual rights paradigm dominates, individuals affiliate themselves along sub-national political, religious, ethnic, and cultural lines and their exercise of fundamental liberties occurs in those contexts. As a normative concept, John Rawls has argued that as a matter of “reasonable pluralism,” liberal states like the United States should recognize peoples and treat them fairly. To do otherwise is to fall short of our best democratic principles, such as the idea that all Americans are entitled to religious freedom. Working at the confluence of Radin and Rawls, the Article argues that Indian tribes are peoples whose legitimate interests in sacred sites deserve special legal protection as a testament to American liberty for both individuals and groups.