Law Commons^™

Navajo Statehood: From Domestic Dependent Nation To 51st State, Ezra Rosser

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The Supreme Court’s recent holding in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta that “Indian country is part of the State, not separate from the State” is a reminder of tribal sovereignty’s precarious foundation under U.S. law. The Court’s holding not only broke with longstanding precedent regarding the relationship between tribes and states, but it is also incompatible with the lived experience of those living in the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation, not the states and not the federal government, has primary responsibility for governing an area roughly the size of West Virginia. Yet most maps of the United States demarcate only state boundaries, …

Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In 1998, FMC Corporation agreed to submit to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ permitting processes, including the payment of fees, for clean-up work required as part of consent decree negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, in 2002, FMC refused to pay the Tribes under a permitting agreement entered into by both parties, even though the company continued to store hazardous waste on land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. FMC challenged the Tribes’ authority to enforce the $1.5 million permitting fees first in tribal court and later challenged the Tribes’ authority to exercise civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over …

Standing For Standing Rock?: Vindicating Native American Religious And Land Rights By Adapting New Zealand's Te Awa Tupua Act To American Soil, Malcolm Mcdermond

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

On February 23, 2017, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (“Tribe”) was forced to disband its nearly year-long protest against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which threatened the integrity of its ancestral lands. The Tribe sought declaratory and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, but the court ruled against the Tribe and failed to protect its interests. While the United States was forcibly removing Indigenous protesters, other countries were taking steps to protect Indigenous populations. In unprecedented legislative action, New Zealand took radical steps to protect the land and cultural rights of …

Solenex Llc V. Jewell, F. Aaron Rains

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In Solenex LLC v. Jewell, the Secretary of the Interior cancelled a highly contentious oil and gas lease in Montana’s Badger-Two Medicine area, an environmentally sensitive and culturally significant area to the Blackfeet Tribe, nearly thirty years after the lease had been issued. Solenex, a Louisiana based oil and gas company and holder of the lease, brought this action to enjoin the cancellation. The District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with Solenex and found that the Secretary’s decision took an unreasonable amount of time and violated good-faith contractual obligations. On these grounds, the court found the Secretary’s …

Privatizing The Reservation?, Kristen A. Carpenter, Angela R. Riley

Publications

The problems of American Indian poverty and reservation living conditions have inspired various explanations. One response advanced by some economists and commentators, which may be gaining traction within the Trump Administration, calls for the “privatization” of Indian lands. Proponents of this view contend that reservation poverty is rooted in the federal Indian trust arrangement, which preserves the tribal land base by limiting the marketability of lands within reservations. In order to maximize wealth on reservations, policymakers are advocating for measures that would promote the individuation and alienability of tribal lands, while diminishing federal and tribal oversight.

Taking a different view, …

Upstate Citizens For Equality, Inc. V. United States, Kirsa Shelkey

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1935 is the proper avenue for Tribes pursuing restoration of their historic trust lands. The Oneida Indian Nation of New York long sought to reassert tribal jurisdiction over its historic homeland in Central New York. These efforts were largely unsuccessful until 2008 when the United States took 13,000 acres of this historic homeland into trust on behalf of the Tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act. This case affirms the federal government’s plenary powers over Indian Tribes, and that neither state sovereignty principles, nor the Enclave Clause upset that authority.

I See You - A Story From The Haudenosaunee, Simone Anter J.D.

American Indian Law Journal

A young Apache woman sits on a bench outside of her university classroom; next to her is a stack of law books. She has just come from the first day of her first-year property class, where the professor lectured about the origins of property law devoid of any mention of Native people. As she sits she notices an individual walking along the sidewalk, towards her. This person wears a baseball hat with the Washington Redskins’ logo embellished on the front, a grotesque caricature of an “Indian.” The person’s attire includes a T-shirt featuring a skull wearing a feathered headdress, probably …

Navajo Nation V. Department Of The Interior, Jaclyn R. Van Natta

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In Navajo Nation v. Department of the Interior, the Navajo Nation challenged the Department of the Interior’s 2001 and 2008 water allocation guidelines and asserted that under NEPA and the APA the guidelines violated the Navajo Nation’s water rights. The Navajo Nation also asserted a breach of trust claim against the United States. After nearly a decade of attempted settlement negotiations, the Navajo Nation reasserted its complaints. The District Court for the District of Arizona denied the Navajo Nation’s motions, and the Navajo Nation appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined the Navajo Nation lacked standing, …

Responsible Resource Development: A Strategic Plan To Consider Social And Cultural Impacts Of Tribal Extractive Industry Development, Carla F. Fredericks, Kate Finn, Erica Gajda, Jesse Heibel

Publications

This paper presents a strategic, solution-based plan as a companion to our recent article, Responsible Resource Development and Prevention of Sex Trafficking: Safeguarding Native Women and Children on the Fort Berthold Reservation, 40 Harv. J.L. Gender 1 (2017). As a second phase of our work to combat the issues of human trafficking and attendant drug abuse on the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation), we developed a strategic plan to better understand the time, scale, and capacity necessary to address the rising social problems accompanying the boom of oil and gas development there. During our process, we discovered, …

By Any Means: How One Federal Agency Is Turning Tribal Sovereignty On Its Head, Clifton Cottrell

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Osage Nation, as owner of the beneficial interest in its mineral estate, issues federally-approved leases to persons and entities who wish to conduct mineral development on its lands. After an energy-development company, Osage Wind, leased privately-owned surface lands within Tribal reservation boundaries and began to excavate minerals for purposes of constructing a wind farm, the United States brought suit on the Tribe’s behalf. In the ensuing litigation, the Osage Nation insisted that Osage Wind should have obtained a mineral lease from the Tribe before beginning its work. In its decision, the Tenth Circuit applied one of the Indian law …

Lewis V. Clarke, Summer L. Carmack

Public Land & Resources Law Review

One manner in which Indian tribes exercise their inherent sovereignty is by asserting sovereign immunity. In Lewis v. Clarke, the Court decided that the sovereign immunity extended to instrumentalities of tribes did not further extend to tribal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The Court acknowledged the concerns of the lower court, namely, the possibility of setting a precedent allowing future plaintiffs to sidestep a tribe’s sovereign immunity by suing a tribal employee in his individual capacity. However, the Supreme Court ultimately felt that the immunity of tribal employees should not exceed the immunity extended to state …

Traditional Problems: How Tribal Same-Sex Marriage Bans Threaten Tribal Sovereignty, Marcia Zug

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responsible Resource Development And Prevention Of Sex Trafficking: Safeguarding Native Women And Children On The Fort Berthold Reservation, Kathleen Finn, Erica Gajda, Thomas Perin, Carla Fredericks

Publications

In 2010, large deposits of oil and natural gas were found in the Bakken shale formation, much of which is encompassed by the Fort Berthold Indian reservation, home to the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (“MHA Nation” or “Three Affiliated Tribes” or “the Tribe”). However, rapid oil and gas development has brought an unprecedented rise of violent crime on and near the Fort Berthold reservation. Specifically, the influx of well-paid male oil and gas workers, living in temporary housing often referred to as “man camps,” has coincided with a disturbing increase in sex trafficking of Native women. The social risks …

Pit River Tribe V. Bureau Of Land Management, 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015), Kathryn S. Ore

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained the correct application of the zone of interests test and further solidified the importance of proper NEPA and NHPA analysis in geothermal leasing. The court reaffirmed that the BLM and the Forest Service must conduct additional cultural and environmental analysis when granting lease extensions under the Geothermal Steam Act. Furthermore, it rejected the BLM’s decision to grant forty-year lease continuations to unproven geothermal leases by treating them as a unit rather than individually.

Crow Tribe Of Indians – Montana Compact, Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins

Public Land & Resources Law Review

This order from the Montana Water Court approved the Crow Water Compact over objections by non-tribal water users in Montana. Although the Objectors have appealed the decision to the Montana Supreme Court, this order represents the next-to-last step in a process, started in 1979, to define and quantify the reserved water rights for current and future uses of the Crow Nation in Montana. The order provides a clear roadmap for other Montana tribes still seeking to achieve approval of a water compact by the Montana Water Court, and for objectors who would attempt to invalidate a compact in future proceedings.

A Tale Of Two Statutes: Zepeda And The Ninth Circuit’S Descent Into Jurisdictional Madness, Luke Emmer Miles

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Unfinished Joruney: Arctic Indigenous Rights, Lands, And Jurisdiction?, Tony Penikett

Seattle University Law Review

The indigenous rights movement has been defined as a struggle for land and jurisdiction. Over the last forty years, American and Canadian governments made much progress on the land question in the Arctic and sub-Arctic; however, from an irrational fear of the unknown, politicians in Washington, D.C. and Ottawa have effectively blocked the pathways to aboriginal jurisdiction or self-government. During the late-twentieth century in the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, as well as in Nisga’a territory, indigenous governments negotiated local government powers, but continent-wide progress on the question of indigenous jurisdiction has stalled. This Article considers the formation and implementation …

Aamodt Litigation Settlement Agreement (Pueblos Of Nambé, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso & Tesuque), United States, State Of New Mexico, Pueblo Of Tesuque, Pueblo Of San Ildefonso, Pueblo Of Nambé, Pueblo Of Pojoaque

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Settlement Agreement: Aamodt Litigation Settlement Agreement (Apr. 19, 2012). 66cv06639, USDC, DCNM. (final signatures Mar. 27,2013) Parties: Pueblos of Nambé, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso & Tesuque, US, NM, Santa Fe County, City of Santa Fe. The key provisions of the Aamodt settlement include: 1) constructing a Regional Water System; 2) providing non-Indians a choice of whether to join the settlement and upon joining, a choice of whether to connect to the Regional Water System for domestic water; 3) relinquishment of existing Pueblo claims against non-Indians who join the Settlement; 4) closing the Pojoaque Basin to new water right development following the …

Cooperative Agreements: Government-To-Government Relations To Foster Reservation Business Development, Joel H. Mack, Gwyn Goodson Timms

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Order Of Determination Of Water Rights For The Owyhee River And Its Tributaries, Including The Rights Of The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes Of The Duck Valley Reservation, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes Of The Duck Valley Indian Reservation, Nevada, United States

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Settlement Agreement: Agreement to Establish the Relative Water Rights of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation and the Upstream Water Users, East Fork Owyhee River (2006) contained, at the 368th page, as Appendix B to In the Matter of the Determination of the Relative Rights in and to the Waters, Both Surface and Underground, Within the Drainage Area of the Owyhee River and its Tributaries Located within the East For Owyhee River Area, Elko County, NV, Order of Determination, From the Office of the State Engineer of Nevada, 2012. Parties: the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley …

Lines Of Tribe, Christine Zuni Cruz

Faculty Scholarship

It is important to begin by explaining why I take the title of my essay from the statement in President Barack Obama's 2009 Inaugural Address: "the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve." During the address, his words affected me and they remained with me long afterward. President Obama may very well have meant what he said in a metaphoric or figurative sense; I have certainly been provided with many interpretations and assurances by most that a literal meaning was not his intent and that he instead spoke in a good way of the beneficial melting of divisions between us." It …

Navajo Nation San Juan Basin In New Mexico Water Rights Settlement Agreement Of 2010, Navajo Nation, New Mexico, United States

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Settlement Agreement: Navajo Nation San Juan Basin, NM Water Rights Settlement (Dec. 17, 2010) Parties: Navajo Nation, US, NM. This Settlement relates to the Navajo Nation’s water rights in the San Juan River Basin located in NM. It is a part of the Juan River adjudication. It reconciles the Apr. 19, 2005 agreement with the Settlement Act. Allottees may make individual water right claims based upon historic and existing uses found in the Joint Hydrographic Survey Report. This Settlement finalizes all claims the Nation could make to the San Juan River Basin and settles all causes of action against the …

Crow Water Rights Settlement Act Of 2010, United States 111th Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: Title IV: Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement - Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement of 2010 in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (PL111-291| 124 Stat 3097). The Act ratifies, authorizes, and confirms the water rights 1999 Compact between the Crow Tribe and MT. The DOI Secretary shall promptly execute the Compact and comply with applicable environmental acts and regulations. The Act provides for: 1) the Tribe to a) rehabilitate and improve the Crow Irrigation Project; and b) Reclamation to construct the municipal, rural, and industrial water system; 2) creates a Project Management Committee made up of the Tribe, …

Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act Of 2010, United States 111th Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Title V: Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement of 2010 (Sec. 501) Parties: Pueblo of Taos, NM, US, Town of Taos, El Prado Water & Sanitation District, Acequia Madre del Rio Lucero y del Arroyo Seco, Acequia Madre del Prado, Acequia del Monte, Acequia Madre del Rio Chiquito, Upper Ranchitos Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Assn, Upper Arroyo Hondo Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Assn, Llano Quemado Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Assn. Federal Legislation to approve, ratify, and confirm the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement; to authorize and direct the Secretary to execute the …

White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act Of 2010, United States 111th Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: Claims Settlement Act of 2010, TITLE III—White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification, PL111-291| 124 Stat 3064, 3073 (Dec. 8, 2010). Parties: White Mountain Apache Tribe, US, AZ. The Act ratifies, authorizes, and confirms the WMAT Water Rights Quantification settlement; authorizes the DOI Secretary to execute the and take all necessary action; to authorize appropriations; and, to permanently resolve certain damages and water rights in the general adjudication of the Gila River System and Little CO River System. The provides for: 1) environmental compliance; 2) tribal water rights; 3) CAP reallocation; 4) tribal leasing, distributing, exchanging or allocation …

Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act Of 2010, United States 111th Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: Title VI: Aamodt Litigation Settlement of the Claims Settlement Act of 2010 (PL 111-291, 124 Stat 3064, 3134). 66cv06639, USDC, DCNM. Federal Legislation to resolve the water rights of Pueblos of Nambé, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque. Key provisions include: 1) a regional water diversion, treatment and distribution system to serve the Pueblos and the customers of Santa Fe County; 2) a Regional Water Authority, a county utility, and Pueblo water facilities; 3) operation, cost-sharing, and system integration; 4) Reclamation design and construction of the system; 5) conjunctive management of surface and groundwater; 6) well fields, aquifer storage …

Navajo Nation Water Settlement & Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Acts Of 2009 (Includes Funding Mechanism For 3 Tribal Water Settlements In Nm), United States 111th Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: Omnibus Public Land Management, Title X - Water Settlements, Subtitle B - Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, PL 111-11, 123 Stat. 991. ◊ Parties: Navajo Nation and US. Part II, Section 10501 sets up the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund. For each of the fiscal years 2020 through 2029, the US will deposit 120M dollars into the Fund, if it is available, plus any interest which comes from Reclamation’s appropriation. The funds are to be spent on Indian water rights settlements that involve water supply infrastructure, to rehabilitate water delivery systems for conservation, or …

Soboba Band Of Luiseño Indians Water Rights Settlement Act Of 2008, United States 110th Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Settlement Act, PL 110-297, 122 Stat. 2975 (July 31, 2008). The Act ratifies the Settlement Agreement dated June 7, 2006, between the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, US, Eastern Municipal Water District, Lake Hemet Municipal Water District and Metropolitan Water District of Southern CA. The Tribe will receive an adequate and secure future water supply (9,000 acre-feet per year); $18 million from Eastern and Lake Hemet water districts for economic development; $11 million from the federal government for water development; and 128 acres of land near Diamond Valley Lake for commercial development. The …

Amended And Restated Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Agreement Oct. 21, 2005, Amendment No. 2, 2007, Gila River Indian Community, Et Al

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Amended and Restated Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Agreement Oct. 21, 2005, Amendment No. 2, 2007. Amendment 2 replaces 3 exhibits with documents filed in or by the courts: 1) Attachment 1 - replacing Exhibit 25.18.A1 - “Stipulation of the Parties to the Amended and Restated Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Agreement Setting forth the Terms of the Settlement (as filed with the Gila Adjudication Court on May 23, 2006”; 2) Attachement 2 - replacing Exhibit 25.18.A2 – “Judgment and Decree”; and 3) Attachement 3 - Exhibit 25.18.B “Order Pursuant to Stipulation issued by the Globe …