Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Tulalip Tribes V. Suquamish Indian Tribe, Kevin B. Rechkoff
Tulalip Tribes V. Suquamish Indian Tribe, Kevin B. Rechkoff
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In a longstanding battle between two entrenched Indian tribes, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed fishing access doctrines established in the Boldt Decisions. Consequentially, the Boldt Decisions have been confirmed as the preeminent authority in determining tribal fishing rights in conjunction with treaties and inter-tribal conflicts. By applying the Boldt standards of “usual and accustomed,” the Ninth Circuit demonstrated its commitment to giving tribes a wide breadth in establishing claims to fishing grounds off reservation. In the future, fishing treaty litigation will continue with the Boldt standard’s low burden of proof for tribes asserting fishing access rights.
Pit River Tribe V. Bureau Of Land Management, 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015), Kathryn S. Ore
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
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.